2004-10-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. David Chatters (Battle River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Chair that I am splitting my time. I forgot to mention that yesterday.
When I started my presentation yesterday I wanted to acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary made a fine speech in introducing this new department and in explaining what it will do and its purpose. Of course words are always easy and he said all the right things, but in my experience with the government over the last 11 years, actions certainly speak louder than words. Its actions have not indicated that it is willing to do anything serious or take any decisive action about the terrorist threat in Canada.
My first concern with the bill and the creation of the department is the fact that I do not believe the government intends to take the threat seriously or to take action. My other concern is that the department lacks an adequate oversight mechanism to evaluate whether we have the kind of protection that we should have in Canada before we have a terrorist incident and before Canadians lose their lives.
I quoted some examples yesterday of evidence to back up my accusation.This morning in the National Post the Prime Minister's own national security advisor, Robert Wright, said that it would be absurd for Canadians to think that they would not be the target of a terrorist attack. I think that is one more piece of evidence that says that we should take this threat every bit as serious as the United States and that we should be doing things to protect Canadians from the terrorist threat.
The member from the Bloc and even the NDP to some degree focused a great deal of time on the issue of emergency preparedness in the face of natural disasters. As the Quebec spokesman suggested, Quebec has long done a good job of preparing for a natural disaster. I would suggest most provinces in Canada, if not all provinces, have done that. The primary responsibility for natural disasters is the provincial government with backup from the federal government, but that was not what motivated the government to bring this department forward. It was the terrorist threat on 9/11 that motivated the government to create this bill.
I do not think it makes much sense to focus on the issue of government response to a natural disaster. Our concern is that we protect Canadians in the face of the terrorist threat and I do not believe the government is willing to do what it needs to do. Even though it has been given the responsibility and the ability under this bill, I do not believe it will take the actions needed to protect Canadians.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents to discuss an issue that reaches far beyond the boundaries of my riding.
Following the terrorist attack several years ago, Canadians have been asking more questions about the preparedness of Canada to handle similar events. In fact, flooding in Haiti, earthquakes in Turkey and other human and natural catastrophes have caused us to pause and ask ourselves what it would be like if it happened here.
Canada has been fairly lucky in the fact that we have suffered few human catastrophes in recent times. Since the great explosion in Halifax, many of our emergencies have been of a weather related nature and with minimal loss of life. While we are fortunate for this, it has lulled us into a false sense of security. Canada needs to be more active in preparing for future crises.
When it comes to discussing emergency preparedness I must mention that I do so from a position of experience. I am proud to say that I am a graduate of the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior, Ontario. Since taking my training there and elsewhere, I have been able to put my skills and knowledge to test, mainly through my employment with the Canadian Red Cross Society.
Prior to becoming an MP, while employed with the Canadian Red Cross Society, I travelled to disaster affected areas to assist people with basic emergency needs. I was in Winnipeg after the flood of 1997. I was in Mississippi during their great flooding. What I learned from those disasters is that advance planning and training does go a long way. It is a good investment and a prudent approach to population protection.
Unfortunately, for all the advance training I did see, I also saw that a lot more was needed in Canada. In the event of a mass crisis we do not have enough pre-coordination and training. We only have enough qualified professionals to meet everyday needs but not for an extended crisis. We do not have a wide network of trained, equipped and organized people to rely on.
I must take a moment though to highlight one of the bright lights of my experience, and that is volunteers. Volunteers are the soul of any disaster management system: volunteer firefighters, cooks, cleaners, medical staff, drivers and suppliers. They are all volunteers. Volunteer staff to assist in every aspect. Volunteers and their families give up time together to help others. They spend their evenings and weekends in training sessions. They spend their own money to help others. They are truly the most giving individuals around. Many volunteers often put the needs of their own home and family at the bottom of the list in order to help others.
If we as a government are going to rely on volunteers so much for emergency preparedness, we must also be prepared to help them. In cases of extreme disaster and, in turn, extreme volunteer commitment, we should consider income compensation, job security protection and out of pocket expense compensation.
What happens if our rural firefighters have to fight a three week tire fire during seeding? What happens if the firefighter works in the local restaurant? Will he or she still have a job afterwards? Who will put the groceries on the table for the family during that period? If we are willing to ask so much of them, we must be willing to consider giving something back.
I am sure I speak for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have benefited from emergency service volunteers. I thank them. I thank them for being there when we needed them.
Having said that, we cannot leave emergency preparedness strictly to volunteers. Canada needs to be better prepared.
This week I was visited in my office by Canada's new chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones. We were also joined by the director general, Dr. Ron St. John. We spoke at length about Canada's state of emergency preparedness, both in general and also specifically as it relates to public health. What quickly became evident and a point of mutual agreement was that we need to do more.
I suggested in the meeting and also in a private member's bill that Canada's medical students should be accepted, encouraged and able to take emergency preparedness training before finishing their education. They could form a network across Canada to help address emergencies far beyond the traditional emergency room.
There are far too many communities that lack a proper plan, resources and staffing to deal with any emergency. Neighbouring communities, and even provinces, have inadequate mutual aid agreements. They are not adequately prepared to come to the aid of their neighbours and this has to change.
A shortage of resources and funding makes it necessary that any successful full emergency response will require the help of one's neighbours. We saw in Florida that repeated crises take a toll on emergency workers. They need to be rotated to ensure they do not make mistakes due to fatigue or harm their own health.
When it comes to mutual aid agreements, I would like to see all services better coordinated, similar to what we often witness with hydro companies. Perhaps it is just the impression given by the media, but in any disaster it seems that out of town hydro workers are among the best prepared to help their fellow workers. They could be leaders for others to follow.
Unfortunately, our rural communities highlight many of the problems also being experienced in our cities. There is inadequate funding even for the most basic of emergency preparedness training. Recent surveys showed that most Canadians do not know basic first aid, let alone have emergency response skills. Skills are nothing without the proper resources.
There are critical resources which do not exist, such as adequate numbers of ambulances, hospital beds, emergency supplies, generators and trained emergency services staff.
I also used to be a coordinator for Canadian Blood Services. I can tell the House that there is room for improvement there. Many rural areas lack enough blood stocks to deal with something as realistically possible as a major bus crash. An event such as a tornado or an earthquake could be disastrous.
Right now in Saskatchewan a team of people are preparing to launch a private rocket into space. While I wish them the best, I also thank them for highlighting the points I have been making. Emergency services in the area have had notice of the planned event and they still do not know how to adequately handle it. Nothing has gone wrong and we all hope that nothing does, but we have exposed a crack in our system that needs fixing. Mutual aid agreements need to be formulated and implemented as soon as possible.
Perhaps the most important point I wish to make in this debate is this. Today we are moving toward passing this legislation and then we will move into the implementation of it. It is not just enough to pass the legislation. We have the responsibility to monitor the implementation, properly fund it and support it. A plan is not worth anything if we cannot execute it.
We realize the need for better emergency preparedness and I really hope the bill does not lull us into a false sense of security. We need to consider ourselves lucky in the past and we must be more vigilant and prepared in the future.
As I said in the beginning, we in Canada have been lucky for the most part. We have had our share of emergencies and we have dealt with some better than others. We have called inquiries into our handling of them and have implemented a few of the recommendations. That is a good start, and I emphasize start, but we need to follow through.
I will conclude my remarks by once again thanking the volunteers in our emergency service response framework. For the trained professionals who work so hard for us, I hope we can create legislation to provide them with what we need. I also want to thank Canadians personally for stepping forward when the need arises. We are a giant nation that often witnesses help coming from ordinary citizens in many forms time zones away.
From coast to coast we truly are neighbours. We really do mean what we say, “If you need a hand, give us a call”. Let us use this legislation to make that a little easier.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the helpful suggestions in her speech. This illustrates, in my view, one of the important dimensions of what we are trying to do here, which is to develop collaboration among all levels of government in order to face emergencies. Every jurisdiction has its own responsibilities and one of the most important things we have to do in Canada is bring those jurisdictions together.
However, I hope that the hon. member did not intend to be alarmist in her comments. She is right to say we have to be more vigilant, but I hope she will also agree that, as the national security advisor said in his speech the other day, we have to recognize the nature of the dangers. The government is doing that. We have invested some $7 billion more in issues.
In fact, as members know, Mr. Ridge was here in the last two days talking with the Deputy Prime Minister about that element of our security in working with the United States. My own department has put substantial resources into this as a result of the national security policy. We have now under Norad a joint planning committee which is designed to deal with cross-border issues.
I hope that all hon. members, particularly the hon. member, who clearly has a sense from her own community of what needs to be done, will work with the government and work with all of us in making sure of it, particularly, if I may suggest to the hon. member, at this level of why we need to coordinate and have cooperation from all levels of government. This needs a coordinated approach from municipalities and provinces as well as the federal government.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, yes, most definitely, I will work with the government to make things better, because I realize from drafting a disaster plan for my community what needs to be done and what has to be done. My concern is that the government will not act as quickly as it should to put the necessary things in place. That is what we have to make sure it does. I want to see a framework that is done responsibly, I want to see it done correctly and I want to see it done as quickly as possible.
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member across the way for some thoughtful interventions. I noted that she has a great background in getting involved with the community as well as responding outside the country in the hour of need. I was a little concerned, though, in hearing her speak, that laymen outside the confines of this chamber who are listening to the hon. member might think we are not at all prepared.
I am wondering if this is really what she means. Yet she volunteers when we sent people in other countries so I am sure that really she does not mean we are not prepared to that extent. I think we are well prepared. If we can send individuals such as herself, and she volunteers to be in other places, I think Canada is well prepared to meet any national emergency.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that I was employed with the Canadian Red Cross Society and I was deployed by the society to the United States. I was not sent by the Government of Canada to help in the United States or even in my mission to Winnipeg. I was employed by the Canadian Red Cross Society as a volunteer.
We have to make sure that all these mutual aid agreements and so on are signed and dotted and that the provinces know they can depend on the federal government. We have to make sure that our field hospitals are supplied. We have to make sure that the Canadian Blood Services is in control of the blood supply and that people have it. We have to make sure that large, vast rural areas have ambulances and that it does not take three hours to get to someone who needs service immediately.
If there is a bus crash in southwestern Saskatchewan and we cannot get a ambulance for three hours to that bus crash where there are seriously injured people, we are going to have huge problems on our hands. We see this in rural Saskatchewan especially. We are short 60 RCMP officers in our province. We have RCMP officers who cannot even have the proper communications. Their radios do not work in some areas of our province. They have to use cellphones and in certain areas their cellphones do not work. That, to me, is not being prepared.
I think we have to look at all aspects of government. We have to look at what the federal government does and we have to make sure that the people involved in emergency services training have the equipment they need to do their jobs. That is the point I want to make today.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to rise and make some brief comments about Bill C-6, now before the House. The bill is described as introducing “an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts”.
On the surface this might appear to be nothing but a pretty straightforward housekeeping bill and in fact one that is overdue, because it basically establishes the legislative authority for what the government has already been doing, generally not a very good practice and not one that is in the proper order of things. Nevertheless, one could say it is positive that we are now dealing with this bit of housekeeping.
I think it is important that we not fall into thinking that this is merely a housekeeping bill. I do not want to exaggerate my concerns. I do not want to go so far as to say that the bill is in fact a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I do want to raise some concerns about the possibility that the bill could create a good many problems. It may solve some problems and there are some reasons for being optimistic about that. But depending on the implementation, on the checks and balances, and on whether the government is prepared to begin paying more attention to the critical importance of human rights and civil liberties in our society and the due process of law, either Bill C-6 will be a positive thing or it will not.
I think that in a way we have to look at this legislation from two points of view. One is around the aspect of emergency preparedness and public safety, which I want to say a little bit about. The other is about the extent to which “public security” matters are really at the heart of what the government intends this bill to be about. It is perhaps difficult in some cases to make a separation between the two.
One of the reasons that I wanted to take the opportunity to speak directly to the public safety and emergency preparedness aspect of the bill is that I want to speak directly from the experience of my riding of Halifax over the last year, when the question of emergency preparedness suddenly became very critical, not just on one occasion but two.
The first, of course, was hurricane Juan, which occurred in mid-September last year. We were subjected to a very serious disaster that called for a Herculean effort from all citizens, all agencies and all levels of government in dealing with its incredible aftermath.
It is not true, as sometimes is suggested, that it was a good thing there was no loss of life given how terrible the massive destruction was, because in fact there was loss of life. An emergency worker ambulance driver was killed in the line of duty by a tree that fell crashed through the roof of his ambulance. There were also some deaths that were indirectly caused although that is a bit more difficult to measure. I am talking about people who were in a state of frail health. A close personal friend of mine, a medical doctor, had been struggling with cancer and was fatally impacted by the fact that, in her very fragile medical state, when severe damage was done to the hospital she was in, service was interrupted and she had to be relocated to another hospital. In the process, she lost her valiant and heroic struggle against cancer.
In general, taking note of these very tragic results of hurricane Juan, the mobilization of the community was truly exemplary. I am not saying that it was perfect. There were tremendous frustrations. The biggest criticism to be made, and I still feel this way, is that communications with the public about what was happening were not perhaps what they might have been. However, the state of preparedness to deal with this emergency and national disaster was really a model of why we have efforts to coordinate government activity.
I was interested to hear the comments of the member from the Bloc last night referring to lessons that were learned from the massive flooding in the Saguenay region. I am not sure if my sequence is correct, but this was followed I think by the ice storm which also created great damage. There probably were lessons learned about improving the communications and coordination that I am sure would have been shared from one province to another, and among the different levels of government.
By and large we saw a very impressive mobilization. There were heroes and incredible stories of voluntary effort that were phenomenal. There were municipal workers who went flat out around the clock without regard to the fact that they were working far beyond the hours that they were duty bound to work.
Then we have the Canadian armed forces. For me it was an extremely valuable education in precisely how the armed forces mobilize in a situation like that. I appreciated the opportunity extended to me by the minister responsible for emergency measures, the then minister of defence, when I was invited to accompany him to do a tour of the disaster areas, both by helicopter and on the ground. I could see the operational side. Mobilizing the armed forces was very impressive, not only those that were on-site in Halifax or throughout Nova Scotia, but bringing in additional personnel from other provinces.
Earlier in the year I introduced a bill which I think was an appropriate one. In fact, it would fall within the mandate of this bill now before the House to provide for the awarding of medals for the Herculean effort put forward by armed forces personnel. It would provide for the awarding of similar medals in the future under similar circumstances.
A question that might arise is, why would we do that for our armed forces personnel, but not suggest the same for municipal workers? There is a small difference that is significant and needs to be taken into account. The municipal workers, who would have been mobilized, worked long hours and were very important participants in restoring security and safety to people's lives. They would have received overtime pay for those extra work hours. There was recognition through appropriate remuneration.
In the instance of the armed forces, I do not know that the public fully takes account that no such thing happens. They are called upon to respond to duty, in some cases do it around the clock continuously without the possibility of any additional financial remuneration. They of course do that at a significant loss of time and ability to play a role in their family life. It is a small way in which we as Canadians can recognize those situations where they go far beyond the call of anything anyone could consider to be reasonable duty.
The provisions in the bill regarding the improvements to coordination and communication are completely supportable and laudable. Cutting down on the possibilities that this kind of coordinated effort may in any way be impeded by the lack of appropriate structures is overdue. I have no reservation about supporting these provisions.
I want to briefly express some concerns about what we have here in terms of both the provisions of the bill and the government's intentions. Of course one cannot measure that and I seek some assurances from the parliamentary secretary who has introduced this bill.
I want to start by citing a prophetic statement. I am not sure who made it, but it is seared forever in my mind. I says that any nation that sacrifices human rights for security will end up with neither. We have had sufficient numbers of alarming situations in this country post 9/11 where there has not been nearly sufficient attention to that very serious threat.
We heard the prophetic words of Afro-American Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California in the aftermath of 9/11, when Bush rushed to create the us and them situation, rushed to declare that every human being was either on Bush's team or on Osama bin Laden's team, and severely polarized the situation which was already extremely dangerous, precarious, and challenging for all nations to respond to.
Those words of Barbara Lee, that in the attempt to defeat terrorism we should not become the enemy we deplore were prophetic at the time. It was very sound advice. She was giving that advice clearly to the Bush administration, but I regret that the Canadian government did not sufficiently heed those warnings. They did not just come from Congresswoman Barbara Lee, although the courage she showed to stand alone and articulate that position was very inspirational for those of us who had a much easier task of trying to create an awareness and a sensitivity on behalf of our own governments.
Being concerned about ensuring public security, we have seen far too many incidents in which there have been imbalances created where human rights and civil liberties have been sidestepped, sideswiped, and in some cases outright trampled upon, in the name of public security. That can take us to an extremely dangerous place as a nation. Unfortunately, we know in considerable agonizing detail that it has brought immense hardship and is continuing to impose incredible hardship on the lives of individual people, and families in some instances, in this country.
It is not some kind of random hardship. It is not random in who is affected. It is very clear that there has been racial profiling. Individuals have been singled out and in many cases mishandled, mistreated and have had their basic human rights and civil liberties trampled upon. When that happens, it is not just damage to the individual, it is damage to the very fibre and fabric of a democratic society that is supposedly rooted in rule of law.
The list is long and shocking. I know there are some who will say that I am exaggerating. Well we cannot exaggerate when we know of instances where there has essentially been a suspension of the presumption of innocence in people facing accusations and harsh treatment. It is not an exaggerated concern to say that people are incarcerated with no charges laid, with no legal process of being brought to trial, and actually in some instances imprisoned for a considerable period of time. That is not acceptable.
We have people, as a result of our appropriate genuine concern about security, who are not benefiting from those very fundamental protections that should exist in a civilized democratic society around due process, transparency, and accountability. In addition, knowing what it is one is being accused of and having the legal counsel and legal process to be in a position to face one's accusers and defend oneself. These are all very serious concerns.
Those cases have a human face. The best known example is what happened to Maher Arar. It is shocking that it occurred because of what appears to have been the passing of information. One could say that the sharing of information is critically important and certainly in this bill there are explicit provisions for removing barriers to the sharing of information. However, the sharing of information can either be a constructive thing and be exactly what is needed to deal with public safety and security or it can be lethal and very damaging if it is not done within the context of the rule of law and appropriate protections for people.
As my House leader, the member for Vancouver East, articulated so well yesterday, we are in support of the principle of the bill. It is hard to imagine why one would not be in support of the principle of the bill, but we are extremely vigilant about what this legislation is really going to be about. We are going to be seeking a great deal of reassurance and more detail in that regard in committee.
I want to end by raising a question and I do not know the answer to this question. I opened one of my newspapers this morning, it might have been reported in many papers, but this was the National Post , and I read an article reporting on Tom Ridge's visit to Ottawa yesterday. The title of the article was “Security will reshape relations”. It was attributed to Mr. Ridge and the subtitle was “Greater integration”. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was stating in Ottawa yesterday that the drive to safeguard North America from global terrorism would reshape Canada-U.S. relations and lead to greater economic integration.
It was not, frankly, until I read that article this morning that it became crystal clear to me that the government's decision to introduce this legislation yesterday may indeed have been directly related to the visit of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. I do not make any accusations about that, but I ask the government to address the concern that is widely shared, that in fact we may be going down the very same road that is shocking the world in terms of the response of the U.S. administration to the issues of public security and post 9/11 responses.
It seems to me that it is too much of a coincidence that the U.S. homeland security secretary was here yesterday on the day that this bill was introduced, which of course was the government's decision and presumably done for a reason. I think it underscores the point that we want to make.
We want to be assured absolutely that the legislation will not put us on a further track to ape, or emulate or follow the truly reprehensible suspension of civil liberties and due process of protection against the abuse of power in the name of security which sacrifices human rights in pursuit of that security. We want to be assured this not just by words from the parliamentary secretary, who is piloting this through Parliament, but in terms of the actual provisions and protections that are built into the bill.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her comments and for her support in principle for Bill C-6. I hope that over the course of the debates we will be able to bring her on side beyond the principles of the bill.
However, I understand the sensitivity on some of the points she has raised. The balance between our national security interest and the rights of Canadians is never an easy balance to achieve, particularly in this new world, to which I am sure that Secretary Ridge was referring, where we have the threat of global terrorism.
I should reiterate what I said in my remarks on the bill. Bill C-6 does not give the minister or any of the portfolios any new information exchange authorities. It simply replicates what is there already. It gives the opportunity to improve the way we share information in terms of technology and protocols, et cetera, so we can be better positioned to share information. However, the authorities in terms of the actual information in the bill do not go beyond what is already there.
We have designed the bill to be a made in Canada solution, respecting Canadian cultural norms and values. That is why I share the member's concern about racial profiling and issues around that. The bill will do nothing to accelerate that. In fact it might help to put a better light on it.
That is why the minister is forming the cross cultural round table so we can hear the views of many of the communities across Canada who have expressed some concern about the potential for racial profiling. That is why we are sensitized to that type of information.
The member for Halifax also is aware, as I pointed out to her colleague yesterday who was aware, of the many oversight agencies that are implicit in the bill and indeed are already in place, the oversight of CSIS, the RCMP. I will not bother to name them as I did yesterday, but I am sure the member for Halifax is aware of them.
However, we live in a different world today. Yesterday the member for Central Nova asked about perimeter. We use this terminology, for example, economic integration. What does that actually mean? The reality is that economies of the United States and Canada are integrated. There is movement of $1.8 billion a day between Canada and the United States. Does that mean we need to integrate fully? There has been discussion around a whole range of options.
I cannot speak for Secretary Ridge, but I know we are cooperating. We have some shared objectives. We want to ensure that we have secure borders and that the flow of people and goods moves freely across the border. That is what we are facilitating. Economic integration is a buzz word that I am not sure I fully understand. It goes in some cases beyond what I personally am prepared to accept, but we need to have that debate in the House.
Our economies are integrated and we are cooperating. That is the level we are pursuing certainly.
I would like to thank the member for Halifax also for her support on emergency preparedness. I had the opportunity to visit our operation centre. It contrasts very well with the operation centre in the homeland security in Washington.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question in there, but I am happy to respond to a couple of things the minister raised.
Yes, it is true, we have oversight agencies dealing with CSIS and the RCMP. However, it is clear that those agencies have utterly failed in some instances. That is in part what the Maher Arar inquiry is about. If we have protections to deal with the excesses and abuses of actions by the RCMP or by CSIS, how could we end up seeing this unbelievable tragedy unfold? I do not choose to, nor should I in any way second guess the outcome of the public inquiry. However, it is clear that the protections were not there or we would not have witnessed a situation where a Canadian citizen ended up being spirited off the continent, because he happened to be passing through New York, on the basis of information that appears to have been supplied by the Canadian government without appropriate checks and balances.
It is also true that the RCMP oversight commissioner has publicly said that the oversight body does not have sufficient powers to even get the information it needs, let alone to come to conclusions that can have any impact in changing the situation with respect to abuses of power.
We have to recognize that we have a job to do to strengthen the oversight capacity and the kind of actions that can be taken in the face of abuses of power that have occurred. I hope this is something at which the government is looking.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Halifax for challenging us to be careful in terms of what we put in place because it has long ranging consequences.
I heard the member who spoke before her talk about the fact that Canada has been lucky in that we have not had any disasters other than natural. I wonder if maybe it is more than luck. Canadian society has evolved as a society that is tolerant and inclusive and the government has come forward in most cases and developed programs over the years that support people so we do not get into positions where we have one group of people who are desperate and in need as opposed to another. There is a mentality or an environment in Canada that precludes us attracting the kind of devastating attack that we have seen in other parts of the world.
Could the member comment on the fact that sometimes we hear people saying that we are lucky as opposed to Canada has been thoughtful in the way it has evolved as an inclusive, tolerant society, and we need to continue down that path?
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sault Ste. Marie brings forward a very important point. It is one we need to remind ourselves about from time to time. It is not just some kind of waffle.
We have made different choices in a deliberate way about what kind of society we want to create. It is not an accident that we have chosen to be a bilingual, multicultural nation that celebrates the diversity and differences while also working to build a strong Canadian family that is absolutely inclusive.
Potentially that means we can be more sensitive and vigilant about the protection of human rights and civil liberties, but we ought not to ever take it for granted. We ought not to make the mistake of thinking that because this is who we say we want to be, that this in fact is who we are. At any point in time we can turn our backs on the important protection of human rights, civil liberties and so on.
Having lived in Texas for a year, post-graduate school was perhaps for me the most Canadianizing experience I could ever have. It made me appreciative of the fact that we made different choices about kind of society we wanted to create and produced different consequences in the process.
Not to be beat up on Tom Ridge today, particularly, but when we see in the name of public security some of the things that are happening in the U.S. today in terms of trampling human rights and civil liberties, suspending the rule of law and so on, then one has to be very vigilant that we do not go down the same path. When one sees the argument that he made publicly yesterday, without apology, that public security demanded and dictated that we go to total economic integration, is drawing a very long bow. It is using the argument of public security to massively influence public policy choices that we have a right as a sovereign nation to make and that we have a responsibility to make to ourselves and future generations to ensure that we continue on that path of compassion and sensitivity and a vigilant safeguarding of human rights and civil liberties, which is the only path to true public security.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sense from the hon. member that there is some concern about the extent of economic cooperation between the U.S. and Canada and that this would tend to lead to other consequences. I know that members have talked a lot about issues to do with security particularly, missile defence, et cetera.
We are inextricably linked to the United States. I am not sure whether it should be characterized that somehow we are beholden. The level of our trade, 75% of our exports go to the U.S., is very good for Canada.
Would the member care to clarify her concerns with regard to the economic linkages and the possible consequences to other areas such as sovereignty issues or militarization issues?
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question because it gives me a chance to say that the hon. member's characterization of my comments is just simply not accurate. I have not said, he did not hear me say and Hansard will not indicate that I said that economic cooperation with the U.S. is to be avoided. However, there is a very big distinction between economic cooperation, collaboration and the obvious interrelationship that exists between our respective economies and the notion of total economic integration.
I am glad the member raised what is a very serious concern, certainly of the New Democratic Party, and it is no secret to anybody. Vast numbers of Canadians are concerned about the same arguments of the threats to public security leading us inevitably, unalterably into falling in line with Bush's missile defence madness, on the same line of argument that somehow because we are neighbours and we exist on the same continent, we have to sacrifice our sovereignty. We have to say we no longer have the right to make this decision based on our own values and on our own analysis of what brings lasting peace in a just world and say no to missile defence. The list of reasons for doing so is very long and we are not prepared to cave into pressures that public--
The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the last engagement moved me to say a few thoughts before we reach question period.
I understand the member's position. She has been quite clear. I am not sure what would constitute full economic integration. I do not think that our economy moves in directions simply because we wish it to. Our economy builds because the government has created an environment which promotes job growth, economic growth and wealth in Canada and to take care of Canadians. I have often thought that the success of a country is really a measure of the health and well-being of its people, not an economic measure.
With regard to Bill C-6 in general, all members understand that in the creation of the department on public safety and emergency preparedness we took a critical step forward to maintain the safety and security of our country.
There are a vast array of issues which Canadians will want to know about. Through the debate here and through the debate that will go on in committee, many of these issues will be explored. That is the important aspect. This is the starting point to deal with some of these concerns.
Certainly we will read in the media of some speculation about where this goes from here. Today I had an opportunity to speak directly with the minister about her meetings with Mr. Ridge yesterday. I was very impressed with the work that has been done with regard to the security issues in areas like Sault Ste. Marie and the piloting there as well as in B.C. There are concerns about the Windsor-Detroit bridge. It is a very busy economic route for bilateral trade. It is going to take seven to ten years to bring that infrastructure into line with what is necessary to deal with the current level of transport as well as the projected growth.
It was a delight for me to see Mr. Ridge here yesterday. The optics were good. I also believe that the issue with regard to security preparedness is on the right track. Sovereignty issues should never be a concern. Canada indeed is a sovereign nation.

Statements By Members
Renovation MonthMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Renovation Month.
For 15 years the Canadian Home Builders' Association has been celebrating the renovation season by providing consumers with information on home renovations, as well as showcasing the building industry's professionals, their products and services.
As Canada's national agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation supports this initiative and works with home builders to share with consumers a wealth of housing information and know-how. CMHC Is there to help Canadians with decisions on buying, renovating and maintaining their homes.
It is committed to working with builders and helping Canadians access a wide choice of quality, affordable homes and making vibrant and sustainable communities a reality right across this country.
Great White North Pumpkin FairDave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I attended the 16th annual Great White North Pumpkin Fair in the small community of Smoky Lake in my riding.
In early October of each year, contestants and observers come from all over western Canada and the northern United States to this festival, swelling the population of Smoky Lake to near 40,000, requiring almost every permanent resident of the town to volunteer to help make the weekend a success.
The residents of Smoky Lake have worked tirelessly to make this weekend a real success with steam thrashing demonstrations, a farmers market, displays, and of course, giant pumpkins. The winning pumpkin weighed in at a staggering 817 pounds and gained 20 pounds per day at the peak of the growing season.
Sincere congratulations to the community of Smoky Lake.
Thunder Bay TelevisionMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member for the riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, I am pleased to offer sincere congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Fraser Dougall on the 50th anniversary of their television station, CKPR.
For half a century the staff of CKPR have proudly served the communities I represent with timely, relevant and insightful news. In addition, CKPR is a strong supporter of community events and encourages volunteerism among its employees. It is also known as a very generous supporter of community events and for its corporate generosity.
As one of Canada's last remaining private and local television broadcasters, I commend everyone who has contributed to the achievements of this quality TV station. On behalf of the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, félicitations à tous.
Mental Illness Awareness WeekMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week was mental illness awareness week.
On Saturday, in my riding, I stressed the importance of this broad public awareness campaign. The main purpose of the awareness week was to dispel the misconceptions about mental illness and its consequences, which often include ostracism.
It was also an opportunity to recognize the many volunteers and agencies that work in this field with limited financial resources. There is a direct connection between funding and service quality and the fiscal imbalance to which the Speech from the Throne will now include a reference.
The fiscal imbalance has to be corrected once and for all, for the well-being of citizens, especially those affected by this growing problem in our society.
Community Care WorkersHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October 10 to 16, 2004 is national Community Care Worker Week.
The health care professionals, paraprofessionals and volunteers who provide care in the community are an integral part of our health care system. Community care workers represent many groups and disciplines and carry out various functions. They include nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, homemakers, home support workers and volunteers. These are the vital front line workers who provide home based care, facility based long term care, meal programs and community support programs.
To honour these front line workers, the Canadian Association for Community Care has initiated the Community Care Worker Award which is presented to the winner in their community every year during Community Care Worker Week. The award recognizes a community care worker who has made a difference in people's lives.
To pay tribute to community care workers across Canada, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing national Community Care Worker Week.
Crystal MethamphetamineMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time in this chamber as the representative of the good people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission. I want to thank them for the privilege they have given me of being their voice in Ottawa.
Like all communities, we face challenges. The current challenge before us involves the dramatic increase in the use of crystal meth, a highly addictive drug that can cause violent, erratic behaviour that puts us all at risk.
Led by Mary and Gord Robson, the Meadowridge Rotary Club launched a campaign to tackle the problem. The response has been overwhelming. Hundreds of concerned citizens have joined us in the effort to do something about this drug that is poisoning our children. We believe that it is time to do everything we can to fight back.
The theme of our campaign is “Life or Meth” because that is the choice facing our communities today. Let us stand together in our hometowns and in this House to choose life and eliminate the use of crystal meth.
Excellence in TeachingHon. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Francesca Ianni is a history and civics teacher at Assumption Secondary School in Burlington. Today she is the recipient of the Governor General's Award for Excellence in the Teaching of Canadian History.
Canada's National History Society hosts this award. It selected eight teachers from across the country who utilize creative teaching methods and exceptional lesson plans that inspire our young people.
A teacher for 11 years, Ms. Ianni offers her students a range of experiences in order to learn history. They do role playing, they listen to guest speakers, including veterans, and they take tours. Through her work she inspires and encourages a lifelong interest in the history of our great country. Her enthusiasm and energy know no bounds. She was nominated by students, parents and colleagues. I have met her and I can say that kids are lucky to have her as a teacher.
Ms. Ianni's ideas will be shared online in the publication of the Canadian history lesson plan which is on the website of Canada's National History Society.
Congratulations, Francesca. Félicitations. Way to go. Keep up the great work.
Institut maritime du QuébecMs. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to draw attention to the 60th anniversary of the Institut maritime du Québec. This diamond jubilee is proof that the IMQ is a gem, one we should be proud of but also one we need to put every effort into preserving.
Its reputation is second to none. Quebec and our great region of Rimouski are proud of it. Canada and the rest of the world call upon its expertise. The IMQ has earned pride of place among our knowledge institutions thanks to the determination and dynamism of its directors and the skill and professionalism of its teaching and support staff.
I congratulate the IMQ's management and staff on their excellence and wish the institute many more years to pursue its mission of education and leadership.
Women's History MonthHon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. Today I am proud to rise as a strong woman from northern Ontario to pay tribute to the trailblazers in the women's movement who have made their mark on Canadian society.
I invite all my colleagues to note the date of October 18. It is the ideal time to visit the monument placed on the Hill to honour the women known as the Famous Five.
These five made their mark in history 75 years ago by their dogged campaign to gain the right for women to be appointed to the Senate.
Emily Murphy once said, “We want women leaders today as never before. Leaders who are not afraid to be called names and who are willing to go out and fight. I think women can save civilization”. This quote is still valid today.
I am one woman who is proud to stand on the path laid out by those five notable women.
Technology Alliance GroupMr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the realities of rural Canada is that Internet access is limited or even unavailable. That is why the government's Community access program, known as CAP, is so important. CAP provides thousands of Canadians with free access to computers and the Internet in places such as schools, community centres and libraries.
In my part of central Ontario, the Technology Alliance Group, or TAG, provides this service in Kawartha Lakes and oversees it in the counties of Haliburton and Simcoe and the district of Muskoka.
Recently TAG's general manager, Linda Rickard, informed me that it was still awaiting confirmation from Industry Canada that it would receive funding for 2004-05. Given that TAG's service extends into Parry Sound--Muskoka, I approached that member, the agriculture minister, to seek his cooperation. By working together we got the ball rolling. TAG's contract is signed and its funding is forthcoming.
This is clear evidence that by working together in this minority Parliament, we can make things happen for the benefit of our constituents.
Millennium Excellence AwardMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate three outstanding young Canadians from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, Carolyn Charters, Larissa Moscu and Meaghan Toth, for being awarded the millennium excellence award for the 2004-05 academic year.
The millennium excellence award program was designed to recognize the achievements of students entering college or university and to encourage academic excellence.
Carolyn, Larissa and Meaghan join another 913 students from across Canada who have demonstrated outstanding achievement in the areas of academics, community service, leadership and innovation.
I would like to wish all of these students the best of luck as they undertake their college and university studies. We look forward to hearing about their future accomplishments.
Middle EastAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, UN special rapporteur, Dugard, has issued a scathing assessment of Israeli government actions in reference to human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
On demolitions of Palestinians' homes, Dugard reports that Israeli bulldozers have destroyed homes in a “purposeless” and “wanton manner” and “savagely dug up roads including electricity, sewage and water lines”. Fifteen hundred demolitions have displaced 15,000 Palestinians.
Dugard documents the suffering of Palestinians as a result of the illegal Israeli wall and condemns Sharon's disengagement plan as one designed to allow Israel to claim its occupation of Gaza is over and, therefore, be no longer bound by the fourth Geneva convention.
Since Israel retains control of border crossings and airspace, it is an occupier, according to the report.
We deplore the loss of innocent Israeli lives as a result of Palestinian mortar attacks and we condemn suicide bomber attacks.
Our government and the international community must heed this UN report. Israel is bound by international law and must end its inhumane treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, indeed, end the occupation
Prime Minister of AustraliaMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a Liberal of vision, a Liberal of integrity, a Liberal prime minister who has shown real leadership in this world; a prime minister whose economic management has been second to none and whose presence on the world stage has made a nation proud.
I am of course referring to the recently re-elected Mr. John Howard, the Liberal prime minister of Australia, a leader whose conservative policies of integrity in government, lower taxes and a strong and well-equipped military have brought his nation 13 straight years of solid economic growth.
It is a shame that our Liberal Prime Minister's record is one of higher taxes, corruption in government and a systematic weakening of our armed forces.
If Canada had a government with the same principles, integrity and vision as Mr. Howard, then Canada could be proud, but then Canada would need to have a Conservative government.
Human RightsMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, bombs and other weapons are being unjustly used against millions of women, men and children in the world, and now we learn that a court in the northern Nigerian state of Bauchi has sentenced a woman accused of adultery to be stoned to death.
Hajara Ibrahim is the fifth person to be thus sentenced in that state. Hon. members will recall the case of Amina Lawal, who received a death sentence in another northern state, Bakauri, and was acquitted after international protests.
It is hard to understand the reasoning behind such cruelty and such attacks on the most basic of human rights.
I call upon parliamentarians throughout the world. Let us unite our voices in a chorus of tolerance, friendship among peoples, and overriding humanity. Let us send the message to Hajara Ibrahim that her struggle for life and freedom is our struggle as well.
Riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen SoundMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise for the first time in the House to thank the fine people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for their overwhelming support in electing me to represent their interests in Ottawa.
My riding is the largest producer of beef and lamb in the province of Ontario as well as many other agricultural products. I would like to pay tribute to these hard-working individuals as they struggle to cope with the ongoing BSE crisis. Some of my friends and colleagues have already filed for bankruptcy. The government must immediately start the flow of money it promised on September 10 before it is too late.
My riding is also surrounded by 175 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, and my constituents are some of the more than 15 million Canadians who would be affected by the American proposal to divert large volumes of Great Lakes water to points south of the border.
The government has already bowed to the Americans on the issues of BSE and softwood lumber. It is time that the government stood up and assured Canadians that our water, our most precious commodity, will stay where it belongs; on this side of the border.
Canada's Parliamentary InstitutionsHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of meeting with history students from Glengarry secondary school in my riding, and speaking to them about the Canadian parliamentary system, the throne speech in particular. Today another group of pupils from another school in my riding, Elda Rouleau primary school in Alexandria, Glengarry county, is in Ottawa as well, learning more about our parliamentary institutions.
Although Canadian history is on our school curriculum, it is always interesting to see how some teachers go off the beaten path a bit to show their students exactly how our Parliament operates.
These young people are the ones who will be here after we are gone. My personal congratulations to them and their teachers on their choice to learn more about our democratic institutions.
Persons CaseMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, October 18 is the 75th anniversary of the persons case. The Famous Five went all the way to the Privy Council to prove that women were persons under the law and could hold public office in Canada. For some of the women it was an intensely personal fight.
Emily Murphy, as a police magistrate, had her judgments appealed repeatedly by one lawyer who said she could not as a woman legally hold that office. Nellie McClung helped women in Manitoba gain the right to vote. Henrietta Muir Edwards established training programs for women. Louise McKinney established women's property rights. Irene Parlby was one of the first women to sit in the Alberta legislature and the first to sit in any legislature in the British Empire.
Although I am proud to be one of the 175 women who have sat in the House since the Famous Five won their persons case, we still have very much work to do in Canada.
Lou Gehrig's DiseaseMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a disease that is being fought by many persons. It is a rapidly progressive, fatal neuromuscular disease that attacks the motor neurons responsible for transmitting electrical impulses from the brain to voluntary muscles throughout the body. These muscles eventually lose strength, atrophy and die, resulting in a spreading paralysis of the entire body. There is no known cause, treatment or cure at this time.
A group of caring persons in my riding of Brant has organized a fundraiser for Sunday, October 17. I wish to commend all of those who contribute to this event and, in particular, Linda and Ray Wreaks, for organizing and hosting the fourth annual ALS benefit dance, and to wish them success in their goal to raise $30,000. This event is a true example of compassion and caring by the good people I am privileged to represent.

Oral Question Period
National DefenceMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just when our proud military thought it could not get any worse, now documents from DND reveal that not only were $54 million slashed from the submarine budget, but the military is now being asked to cough up an additional $144 million and $184 million next year. In addition, $500 million in cuts are being contemplated by the defence department. This will virtually wipe out all of the money that the Liberal government bragged about giving the military last year.
Yesterday the minister said in the House, “When we have to invest, we invest”. How does the minister square that statement yesterday with documents revealing his department plans further cuts to the Canadian military?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I square it with the fact that the government has invested. Since 1999 we have committed $10 billion of new money to the military. We have committed $7 billion in new equipment. We are now committed, and I am confident we will get money for the 5,000 additional troops that the government promised in the election campaign and which we will deal with in the review that we are going to take to the House of Commons.
We are reinvesting in the military. We are also a part of a government that is committed to fiscal responsibility. We will work together with our partners in governments to ensure this department is properly financed and works properly.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the military needs moral responsibility from the government. The government took $1.2 billion away from the military in the last budget. The 2003 budget allocated $800 million to the military and then $200 million was promptly taken back. Now the government is taking back every cent and more that was promised to the Canadian Forces. What a cruel and deceptive move on the part of the government.
Military analysts say that these cuts will delay any recovery. Our forces have suffered grievously under the government. Why does the government continue to play this dangerous shell game with our Canadian Forces?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous for the hon. member to say that these decisions have been made. It is outrageous to make misleading comments in the House of Commons about what the government is doing. The government is reinvesting in our military. No decision has been made whatsoever about the cuts to which the hon. member has made reference.
Of course the government is discussing what efficiencies we should make through our whole government and how we should deal with it, and I can promise the government, the House and the public that our department will cooperate in that, but the overall record is that we are reinvesting in our military heavily.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what is outrageous is the cynical way in which the government has handled our defence budget.
My question is very simple. Does the minister have the courage to make a firm promise today not to reduce the national defence budget any further?
Will he stand in his place today and guarantee unequivocally no more cuts to the Canadian military?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, the military itself is looking for ways in which it can rationalize, make itself efficient and deal with modern threats. We have a military that invested in many things, tanks and other issues, which we have decided do not correspond to what we need for a future modern military. Every other country is going through the same thing.
It would be unwise and even foolish to say that some things will not be cut. Some things may be cut but overall the military will be reinvested in and will be a better military, a more efficient and modernized military, and that is what we need.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister's answer is that the government will continue to underfund our military as it has for the past decade.
In its former life as the HMS Upholder , the HMCS Chicoutimi had a lengthy history of serious electrical and water leakage problems. In fact, five times in the early 1990s this sub was forced to limp back into port due to the very type of problem that tragically reoccurred last week.
Despite knowing this and continuing its policy of chronic underfunding of our navy, the Liberals agreed to acquire this submarine. Why?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to acquire the submarine precisely because the navy was there during the very trials that the hon. member refers to. They were familiar with the problems and worked their way through them.
The submarine has been late leaving Scotland for the very reason that our navy personnel spent time making sure that the sub was safe for ocean passage before it left port. That is why they took the extra time and why they did what they did. I am confident that they were professionally capable of doing that. That is exactly what we asked them to do, and that is what they have delivered for the good of the navy and for the good of the country.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, obviously this minister and his Prime Minister have a bad habit of blaming everyone else for their decisions. Last week, and they are continuing today, it was blame our navy. Yesterday the Prime Minister blamed the British. It was his government that decided to acquire these submarines when it knew of their long history of defects and then the Prime Minister himself decided to underfund the retrofit program.
Why will they not simply accept the responsibility for their own decisions?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, we do accept responsibility for our decisions and that is why we negotiated a price for the submarines. The hon. member says we undercut the amount of money available for them. We negotiated a price that was less than the asking price and then we reinvested substantial new moneys on top of that to make sure they were fit to sail.
That is what the government is doing. That is what the government is responsible for. The government did that in conjunction with the navy. We worked with the navy. This is not hiding behind the navy. This is relying on the professionalism, the expertise, of a superb group of men and I continue to remain confident in their judgment.
Aerospace IndustryMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Minster of Transport, the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario. Nevertheless, the government is content with stopgap measures that lead to uncertainty about its real intentions regarding equipping this industry to face international competition.
Now that Bombardier, Quebec's premier aerospace firm, is being courted by several American states, does the government intend to do its part and produce a concrete offer within a month, so that Bombardier can develop its new aircraft in Quebec and thus save thousands of highly skilled jobs?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are developing an aeronautical strategy and aerospace strategy for all of Canada which will include Bombardier. We are having discussions. We are pushing ahead on an urgent basis. It is a critical industry for Canada, with over $21 billion in revenue and nearly 80,000 jobs, and we intend to make sure that it is the most competitive industry possible going forward.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the government has a number of programs that could be used to help Bombardier immediately, for instance Technology Partnerships Canada, tax credits to encourage research and development, or Export Development Canada. The tools exist; it is the will to act that is missing.
Because there is little time left before Bombardier makes its final decision known, can the government commit to revealing its intentions by the end of the month?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be railroaded into making an urgent decision. We are working with Bombardier. We will make a timely decision and we will ensure that the Government of Canada is there to provide the appropriate support for Bombardier, for the aerospace industry and for all of Canada.
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week Quebec's minister of economic development, Michel Audet, urged the federal government to do its part quickly to help Bombardier develop its new aircraft in Quebec.
What is the federal government waiting for to give real support to Bombardier? Time is running out. Tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs are being threatened.
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development in Quebec. We are working together. We do intend to make sure that there is a strong business case. At this time we still do not have all of the details that are required to ensure the taxpayers of Canada are protected and Bombardier and the aerospace industry are protected.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberals announced a $500 million dollar aid package to support Ontario's automotive industry.
Since the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario, when will the government finally begin providing serious support to the aerospace industry in general and to Bombardier in particular?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, the government is working hard on automotive sector strategies that will benefit not just Ontario but all of Canada, and we are doing the same thing for the aerospace industry.
Public ServiceMr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's ineptitude in the public service issue is extraordinary.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Our employees of the federal public service are out of their jobs. They have been without a contract for a year and a half in many cases. The government's ineptitude here has been extraordinary. We did not need to be in this situation; we are awash in a surplus. Can we have an update on when this strike will end and what action the government is taking to bring it to an end?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, we are at the table and we have professionals at the table. The unions have professionals there. We are in the final stages of these discussions and I anticipate we will have a resolution soon, but I do not think we assist that process by bringing it to the floor of this chamber.
Child PovertyTony Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Social Development. Given the prominence of the mention of the child tax benefit as the federal government's major initiative to end child poverty, given the resolution of the member from Ottawa Centre, unanimously passed by the House in 1989, to end child poverty by the year 2000, and given the fact that poverty for children has actually doubled, will the minister ask the provinces to stop clawing back the child tax benefit supplement from the most at risk and marginalized of our children and families?
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think all parliamentarians are very much concerned if even one child in Canada lives in poverty, not the number that does exist. We unanimously passed that resolution in this House. The government is working with the provinces. There will be a federal-provincial conference on November 1 and 2. Some of these issues will be discussed at that table.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. If one is a Liberal, membership clearly has its privileges. I have in hand yesterday's testimony from the Gomery inquiry. We know the Gomery inquiry: that is where direct questions get direct answers.
Yesterday Madam Roy was asked whether political affiliation carried weight in funding decisions under the sponsorship program. She said yes. My direct question to the minister is, in addition to former hockey stars who hosted million dollar cocktail parties for the Prime Minister, what other friends of the Prime Minister received taxpayers' money?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our Prime Minister has throughout his time as Prime Minister committed to and delivered full transparency and openness.
Justice Gomery's work is important work. We are providing full cooperation to Justice Gomery. I would urge the hon. member not to comment on day to day testimony before Justice Gomery because we need to get to the full truth and only Justice Gomery's report will provide Canadians with that answer.
Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's testimony was damning. We heard evidence of “big Liberals” receiving taxpayers' money. Canadians now have confirmation that the corruption of the sponsorship program was tied directly to big Liberals.
We know that the hon. member himself is now a big Liberal, but this is the minister's chance to come clean and disclose to the House the names of other big Liberals who received sponsorship money because of their ties to the Prime Minister.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I work out in the member's gym every day and I am still not a very big Liberal.
The fact is, the day to day testimony before Justice Gomery does not provide the full truth to Canadians. Today's testimony could be contradicted by next week's testimony. If the hon. member is really interested in the truth he would support Justice Gomery, not prejudge the work of Justice Gomery, and wait for the full report, which will provide Canadians with just what they want and that is the full truth about the sponsorship issue.
Whistleblower ProtectionMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had a fine example of precisely what we are trying to achieve by allowing public servants to disclose intolerable situations they come across.
How much money does the minister think could have been saved from the Liberals' shenanigans if Ms. Tremblay had been free to disclose these fraudulent practices to an independent commissioner?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me to comment on events that were discussed before the Gomery commission, I do not intend to do so because I think Justice Gomery should deal with that.
If he wishes to comment on the structure of the whistleblowing legislation that we put forward, it is going forward at first reading. If he wishes to read it and try to understand it, he may find ways to help us put in place the most transparent regime we can.
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, the minister denies a principle of independence by insisting that public servants report wrongdoing to management, who in turn report directly to a Liberal minister.
Why has the minister failed to allow honest, dedicated and hard-working public servants to report wrongdoing directly to an independent commissioner?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, not only is the president of the Public Service Commission appointed in exactly the same way that the Privacy Commissioner, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Official Languages Commissioner are appointed, but also in the bill, if he reads it, he will find that there are two sections that specifically allow public servants to go directly to the commissioner.
Sponsorship ProgramMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that applications for sponsorship funding from powerful Liberals received special attention at Minister Gagliano's office. We also learned this week that the current Prime Minister, through a member of his staff, intervened in favour of close Liberal friends of his: André Ouellet and Serge Savard.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he was aware that his chances of reversing the officials' decision in the matter of the Internationaux du sport were pretty good, knowing that powerful Liberals received special treatment?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to respect the independence of the Gomery commission. We must not prejudice its work. I am looking forward to the report, but we must wait.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the real program guidelines were hidden and that the correspondence concerning this program was handled in secret.
Does this mean that yesterday's revelations confirm what everyone knew before the cat was let out of the bag: the sponsorship program was the exclusive preserve of close Liberal friends?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to those types of questions. The fact is that it does give me an opportunity to speak about some of the important work that the Department of Public Works and Government Services is doing on behalf of Canadians.
We have an ethics and integrity package that was introduced several months ago and has been recognized by the Conference Board of Canada as a best practice model for both the private sector and the public sector in Canada. We are working on a new procurement strategy, real property strategy, and a new approach for IT, which will demonstrate on a day to day basis respect for hard-earned tax dollars and the best possible services for Canadians.
TaxationMr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his latest budget, the Minister of Finance anticipated a $4 billion surplus for the current year. However, yesterday the The Fiscal Monitor , which is the official publication of the Department of Finance, mentioned that, for the first five months of the current year alone, the budgetary surplus is already $4.7 billion. And the year is not over yet; there are seven months left.
Is this not once again the government's well worn strategem of hiding its budgetary surpluses from the public to avoid any debate on a use for them?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. What the hon. gentleman is referring to is a document called The Fiscal Monitor , which is published on a regular, monthly basis by the Department of Finance to tell parliamentarians and all Canadians the exact ebb and flow of expenses going out and revenues coming in so that everyone can know the status of the books as the year unfolds. I would point out that it is a snapshot in time. There will be another Fiscal Monitor next month, and the month after that. One has to see the whole year to see the full picture for the fiscal year.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the 2004-05 surpluses are not all used on the debt, will the Minister of Finance pledge to pass a bill before March 31, 2005, so that Quebec, the provinces and their citizens can benefit from a good portion of the future surplus?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we have passed a number of bills in previous parliaments and I have no doubt that we will pass bills in this Parliament which will make major transfers from the Government of Canada to assist the provinces. We are doing so in health and in equalization. We have done the same with respect to infrastructure, housing and immigration.
There are many examples of that very kind of thing. Obviously, we want to provide the greatest possible certainty, both for this Parliament and for the provinces before the end of the fiscal year.
HealthMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, two days ago the health minister hinted that he may expand the hepatitis C compensation to victims outside the 1986 to 1990 group because there may be a surplus. These words are coming six years too late for a lot of victims.
The minister now says that he is examining the issue, but the next actuarial report is not due until June 2005. Victims cannot wait that long. They are demanding action now.
Will the minister confirm today that he will act immediately and not wait until next year?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has acted very responsibly. It has given service to those people suffering from this disease. It has made sure that we have care for them and have given the provinces the additional money that they would require. Over $1.4 billion has been invested so far to care for those people.
The minister has said that he would look at this with the other partners, and if there is an actuarial surplus, this may be one of the areas it could be put to good use.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the government used scare tactics when it devised this scheme. It said that there would be tens of thousands of victims and that the funds would run out. Now we find out different. A recently released audit shows that the fund made $50 million last year. There is still over $1 billion in the fund. The fund is growing while the victims are dying.
Why will the government not do the right thing and compensate all victims who were poisoned with tainted blood?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the fund was created with the figures derived from the provinces, which are giving care to those people, from the people afflicted themselves, to their class action, and with the court; the best information possible.
The courts determine whether there is an actual surplus. The minister has said that if that is the case, he would be willing to work with the partners, who are participants in the fund, to see what the best use would be. Distribution to the pre-1986, post-1990 might be one of those areas.
Canadian HeritageMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. “Democracy Watch” has now stated that the trip to Banff should be listed as an election expense because the speech she gave amounted to blatant electioneering.
Not only did the minister spend $55,000 on a personal trip on a Challenger, but a further $4,000 so that two political aides could accompany the minister. This flagrant abuse of the law and taxpayer money is both robbery and snobbery.
Why did taxpayer dollars pay for two political aides to attend a non-partisan event when they simply handed out Liberal election pamphlets?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister was there to talk about policies with the CRTC, the importance of the CBC and how important Canadian culture was.
As I understand it, all her expenses followed the Treasury Board policies. I hope the opposition will spend more time telling the Canadian public about its position on those policies.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the former Canadian heritage minister took the stage in Banff during the last election. Afterward, according to Variety magazine, many attendees expressed concern over such a “nakedly political speech”. The speech was given for purely partisan reasons. Taxpayers should not have to pay for Liberal electioneering.
Will the minister guarantee that the Liberal Party will repay taxpayers for this trip?
Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the speech that the minister delivered in Banff was about the CRTC, the importance of CBC, the importance of the Canadian television fund and how important Canadian culture was.
I hope the opposition will spend more time telling Canadians its position on those very important issues to Canadians.
HealthPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 on reproductive technologies passed in the last Parliament and was represented to include a comprehensive ban on human cloning. However, at the same time Canadian representatives before the United Nations were supporting a resolution for only a partial ban, which would permit a form of human cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, otherwise known as therapeutic cloning.
Will the Minister of Health reaffirm to the House and to all Canadians that our law is and will continue to be a comprehensive ban on human cloning by all forms and techniques, including therapeutic cloning?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the government's position on human cloning is clear. As of April 2004, under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, all forms of human cloning are prohibited in Canada for whatever purpose and using whatever technique. Even though therapeutic cloning is now prohibited, important research involving stem cells can still proceed.
The Assisted Human Reproduction Act establishes a framework within which research involving in vitro embryos to derive stem cells can be undertaken. Researchers wishing to undertake embryo research to derive stem cells will have to comply with strict regulations and obtain a licence for the new regulatory agency to be established--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Post-Secondary EducationAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, yet again the government underestimates the surplus, this time by $7.2 billion. The government may not know the difference between $1.9 billion and $9.1 billion, but Canadians sure do. They also know this is not the real surplus because it masks the debt burden heaped on our students and their families.
When will the government restore the billions cut from post-secondary education and reinvest sufficiently in our colleges and universities to enable tuition reductions and ease the all too real student debt burden in the country?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will want to recognize that we have an array of mechanisms at the disposal of students who find themselves in a situation where their loans become burdensome. There are $380 million put toward loan repayment. There are $73 million set up annually for students who require debt relief.
Yesterday, I am pleased to say, we introduced a Canada learning bond that will help students from disadvantaged families and lower income families have better access to an education down the road.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, also known as Scrooge McDuck, is smiling like a Cheshire cat on his huge surplus. He is making life very difficult for Canada's seniors. Every day seniors make choices between prescription drugs, food and heating their homes. One constituent in my riding, Brenda Anderson, received an 11¢ increase on her GIS.
I would like the finance minister to look into the camera, speak directly to Brenda Anderson and advise her where she should spend her 11¢ increase.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why it is important to deal with issues like debt reduction is to ensure that when we face that big retirement of the baby boomer generation, just five or six years from now, those senior citizens, together with today's senior citizens, will have medicare and pensions and will not see 30¢ or 40¢ out of every dollar going to pay interest rates. That is the advantage of debt reduction.
I am very pleased to tell the hon. gentleman, we are going to increase the GIS.
AgricultureMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the BSE border closure has caused a backlog of livestock across the country, and the need for more slaughter capacity is a must. New start-ups have been trying to access Farm Credit Canada's venture investment fund to start their operations. Many producers are skeptical as to whether the government's new loan loss reserve will entice lenders to invest in slaughter plants.
If the government's loan loss program does not work to expand plants or induce new start-ups, will the government commit to direct financing of new and expanding plants in every region of the country to deal with our backlog of livestock?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is certainly getting into hypotheticals and taking the negative approach, like the Conservatives often do.
The minister made a very important announcement on September 10 in which we would maintain trying to get the U.S. border open. We would look at getting new borders open. The minister made an announcement from China the other day in which it would take bull semen, as well as cattle embryos. There will be an announcement coming out of Japan in terms of the slaughter capacity. We have the set aside program, and we are working strenuously to get that slaughter capacity increased.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister met with U.S. homeland security chief Tom Ridge. The Liberals have said that they will use all meetings with U.S. counterparts to discuss getting the border reopened for Canadian beef. I quote the finance minister, “We don' t want any bilateral conversation to go by without BSE”.
Did the Deputy Prime Minister discuss the border closure with Secretary Ridge yesterday?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was listening to the press conference that Secretary Ridge and I held yesterday, in response to a question from the media, Secretary Ridge indicated that I had discussed this matter with him. I will continue to discuss the matter with him as I know all our colleagues do when they meet their American counterparts.
JusticeBradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On Wednesday when the minister was asked about closing loopholes for child pornographers, he said that we must “protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.
Why does the government use the charter as an excuse to protect pornographers instead of children?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General, I am obliged with respect to the introduction of any legislation to certify that it comports with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think the member opposite would want me to be in breach of that legal obligation.
With respect to child pornography, we have introduced legislation that will give us the strongest child protection regime against child pornography anywhere in the world.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that he has closed all the loopholes, but the legitimate purpose loophole in Bill C-2 still will allow the courts to excuse child pornography on the basis of it being so-called art.
Could the minister please tell me how child pornography could possibly be artistic?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he re-read the bill because it states clearly that child pornography remains child pornography. There is no defence against child pornography. There is a defence if there is a legitimate use of materials with respect to an investigation regarding child pornographers.
Oil and Gas IndustryMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of the flare-up in oil prices, it does not take a psychic to know that consumers will once again foot the bill. This increase will hit not only motor vehicle owners, but also the many families that rely on heating fuel in the winter.
This time, will the government have the foresight to create a petroleum monitoring agency?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 of this year the Competition Bureau initiated a study of the gasoline pricing market. That study is underway. If there is any violation of the Competition Act, I am sure suitable action will be taken and taken firmly.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2003, a majority of members of the Standing Committee on Industry recommended the government create a petroleum monitoring agency.
Why does the minister stubbornly refuse to immediately act on this recommendation?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, this issue is under consideration right now. We will look at it going forward. We first want to hear from the Competition Bureau on the competitive conditions in the market for oil, gasoline and other fuels.
JusticeMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on September 16 of this year Darryl Talbot was found brutally murdered in his Regina home. Lawrence David Sharpe has been charged with this murder. Mr. Sharpe is also charged with the death of an Alberta man in August of this year and has a long history of violent crime stemming back to 1991, but our justice system continues to allow Mr. Sharpe to reoffend.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why was this individual not classified as a violent offender? Why is the justice system failing Canadians?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, in relation to seeking a designation upon conviction, such as for a dangerous offender, that discretion rests with the prosecutor. Those prosecutors are in fact within the employ and direction of provincial attorneys general.
Therefore, the question as to why in a given case such a designation was not sought would be better put to the provincial attorney general involved.
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the specific case, could the minister explain why repeat violent offenders are being let out on the street?
Will the government admit that the current system is simply not working? How many more tragedies have to occur before the Liberal government realizes that we need to be tougher with violent offenders?
Why do the rights of convicted criminals continue to supercede the rights of law-abiding citizens and innocent victims?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, we have a corrections system and a parole system, the main objective of which is the safety of the public.
I think it is also fair to say that we have a corrections and parole system that is viewed globally as one of the very best. We do. We must always put public safety first but we also know that the reintegration of offenders is also an important part of our justice system.
I have indicated that I am willing, as are the heads of Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board, to review both the substance of the law and existing policies--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
Youth JusticeBeth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, could the justice minister tell Canadians and this House the results of the most recent report on youth custody and community services?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we had a 4% drop in the youth population in custody from 2001 to 2002, but in particular the overall youth incarceration rate was 12.5% per 10,000 youth population, which represents a decrease of 5% from the previous year but, most important, a significant 33% decline since 2003 and 2004.
I would like to add that we do have to address the disproportionate incidence of aboriginal youth in the criminal justice system.
Economic DevelopmentMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the day before the election call, eastern Ontario Liberal MPs announced that our region's CFDCs would receive $10 million.
Then the Liberals lost the seats. Five months went by with no hint of the funds, until my office called the department this morning at 9 a.m. to inform it that I would be raising this fact in question period at 11 a.m.
Within an hour, CFDCs were informed that at last the funds were on their way.
Now it is nice, I guess, that Fednor is capable of such partisan hypersensitivity, but could I ask that from now on it base the timing of its announcements on genuine community needs instead of on partisan considerations?
Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that the eastern section of our province was granted a $10 million economic development program.
I am pleased to report that before 9 o'clock this morning that program was well on its way. My colleagues and the colleagues on that side of the House are in the process now of being advised where those moneys are being spent.
Softwood LumberMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Americans filed a NAFTA extraordinary challenge in the softwood dispute which will extend NAFTA legal action into next year.
Five senators, obviously prompted by the U.S. lumber lobby, recently spoke on the congressional record urging major changes to chapter 19 of NAFTA because of their unhappiness with losing at the NAFTA panel on the softwood dispute.
Their statements represent a major threat to NAFTA. Why has the government remained silent to this hostile attack on NAFTA?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. To go back to his speech coming out of Sun Valley, the Prime Minister raised how important it was that the very provisions of NAFTA be respected by all parties.
I am glad the hon. member is going to join with us in advocating throughout the United States that the rule of law be respected.
National DefenceMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the list of troubling facts surrounding the construction and commissioning of the submarines purchased in Great Britain is growing. The papers reported again this morning that the problems with the Chicoutimi appear to date back as far as 1988.
Does the government agree that these daily revelations on the misadventures of these submarines are proof that an independent investigation is needed more than ever?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, an investigation is being carried out by navy experts. It is in the navy's interest to determine the problem in order to rectify it. Our navy carried out the acquisition in a very responsible manner, and I am confident that it will act in the same manner during its investigation. Let us allow this investigation to unfold without us MPs jumping to irresponsible conclusions.
Infrastructure ProgramsDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the recent Speech from the Throne, we learned of the government's wish to continue to invest in communities, and I congratulate it on that. However, the municipalities in my riding are waiting with impatience for the rural component of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure agreement to be signed and the project to start.
Can the minister tell us when this commitment made by the government in the throne speech will become reality, and whether projects in my riding and elsewhere will be forthcoming?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can look forward to two pieces of good news.
First of all, we will shortly, within weeks in fact, be concluding discussions with our colleagues in Ontario in connection with the municipal rural infrastructure program.
Second, in our 2005 budget we plan to share a portion of the gas tax with communities of all sizes, in his riding and in every other riding in Canada.
International TradeJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Canada and other member countries have successfully challenged U.S. legislation, known as the Byrd amendment, which encourages trade disputes by providing that tariffs collected as a result of U.S. industry complaints are paid to those same complainants.
The WTO ruling gives Canada retaliatory rights until the U.S. repeals the legislation. What retaliatory measures is the Canadian government planning?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we have, in accordance with the rights awarded to us by the WTO to retaliate in terms of Byrd, worked on a preliminary list. This is a list we are working on in conjunction with the eight other countries that will be taking retaliatory actions against the United States. We will be working in conjunction with them.
I think hon. members will probably see our preliminary list within the next month.
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
PrivilegeMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48 that involves two matters of privilege arising from yesterday's question period and about which I gave you notice yesterday.
I submit that in responding to a question put by me, the Minister of Canadian Heritage deliberately misled the House and that her reckless remarks have had a second effect of tarnishing my reputation as a member of Parliament.
On page 119 of Erskine May's 21st edition it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

The minister clearly misled the House in an effort to attack my integrity when she said:

According to an article in the National Post, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast spent $121,000 of taxpayers' money in airline trips during the Alliance leadership campaign. Shame, shame.

She further said:

--where is the $121,000 of taxpayers' money for airline trips that the hon. member took during the Canadian Alliance leadership campaign?

Those statements are patently false. The minister was apparently referring to a Southam News story that appeared on June 16, 2001, which cited the annual report on MPs expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001.
As Your Honour will know, this report included all expenses related to parliamentary travel for the full 12 months of the fiscal year.
The Canadian Alliance leadership campaign in the year 2000 was held between March and June of that year, some three months of the 12 month period covered by the parliamentary travel report that the minister cited. She therefore patently misled the House when she said that my travel expenses were incurred “during the Canadian Alliance leadership campaign”.
I anticipate that the minister will seek to blame her serious and, I believe, deliberate error on the National Post article that she cited. However the article in question makes very clear that the amount in question constituted my parliamentary travel “over the past year” and “for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001”.
The article cited by the minister does not make the claim that she suggested it makes, i.e., that the entirety of my parliamentary travel occurred during a three month period.
Furthermore, the minister said twice that I had “spent $121,000 of taxpayers' money for airline trips”. This too is patently false, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know and as the minister will know.
The public accounts disclosure report for the House of Commons includes all travel expenses, including the travel status expense allowance and all other forms of travel. In other words, the figure cited by the minister includes the cost of maintaining a secondary residence in the national capital and a host of other necessary receipted expenses incurred by all members, which have nothing whatsoever to do with “airline trips”. The cost of flights for the year in question was therefore considerably less than the minister claimed, as she well knows.
I therefore submit that she wilfully misled the House in at least two respects. I further submit that the minister did so in order to defame me and thereby breached my privileges as a member.
According to our practice, as stated on page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada :

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House...” and “libels upon members individually...”--

On March 16, 1983, Mr. Mackasey raised a question of privilege in order to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette . On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled that he had a prima facie question of privilege.
The reasons given by the Speaker, from page 29 of Jeanne Sauvé's selected decisions, are:

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”. Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains.” Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

I would also refer you to a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980, at page 4213 of Hansard . The Speaker said:

--in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about...members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

I submit that the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage defamed me and thereby violated my privilege by deliberately implying that I had somehow “spent taxpayers' money for airline trips” illicitly.
Indeed the blues show her saying “Shame, shame”, and “Where is...the taxpayers' money for airline trips that the hon. member took during the Canadian Alliance leadership campaign? Where is it? Did he give it back?”
These comments were clearly intended to leave the implication that my annual parliamentary travel expenses, albeit erroneously cited as I have detailed, were somehow illicit and that I am under some legal or ethical obligation to repay this amount. This implication is clearly defamatory.
Any expenses that I have claimed as a member of Parliament have been in full compliance with the rules of the House and have been approved by officers of the House for reimbursement. In carefully complying with those rules any travel costs that I charged to the House travel program were related to parliamentary business alone, while any non-parliamentary travel was paid for by myself personally, or my party, or organs of my party.
The minister presented no evidence to the contrary to support her attack on my integrity. She merely engaged in free and reckless conjecture and innuendo.
In this regard, I would note that my travel costs for the year in question were entirely within the norm for western members. For instance, the travel disclosure for the year in question shows that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister spent $116,000, a comparable amount, in the last fiscal year for which records are available.
Indeed, the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself spent $33,000 in travel costs in the last year to represent a constituency that is considerably closer than my own. In fact, Montreal is 89 nautical miles from the national capital region, which means that she spent $370 per nautical mile, whereas Calgary is 1,790 nautical miles from Ottawa, which means that I spent $67 per nautical mile. That is to say, the minister claimed 540% more in travel expenses--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary--Southeast is going a little beyond the arguments necessary to outline his question of privilege. While it may be of great interest to hear about the expense per nautical mile of various trips around the country, it is not helpful to the Speaker in dealing with a question of privilege which he raised in a serious tone at the beginning. Perhaps he would go back and complete his argument on the principal point here.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was just about to do that. I wanted to assure that you had all the relevant information before you for your consideration.
In closing, the minister effectively cast an ethical cloud over my entirely legal and appropriate travel costs which were incurred in the performance of my parliamentary duties. In so doing, she indirectly cast aspersions on all members who conduct the same kind of travel that I do in full compliance with the rules of the House.
If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly examine the hon. member's remarks and respond later. As the hon. member was going through that information, I hope that it would apply to all members of the House, that we in fact do take caution when we cast these so called aspersions. I know members of the other side often quote from documents as well. Mr. Speaker, as you take this under advisement, we will review those remarks and certainly respond as appropriate.
The Speaker: I am certainly prepared to take the matter under advisement. I would like to hear from either the government House leader or from the Minister of Canadian Heritage on this point before rendering a decision in the House on the matter. I thank the hon. member for Calgary--Southeast for his usual able argument in advancing the case that he has made.

Routine Proceedings
Ways and MeansTony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I have the honour to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement and the Tlicho tax treatment agreement which is part of this notice, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.
Criminal CodeIrwin Cotler: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Safe Drinking Water ActPeter Stoffer: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-209, An Act to ensure safe drinking water throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill has been introduced in the House for several years now. I am re-introducing it on behalf of all Canadians who are very concerned about the quality of their drinking water.
From coast to coast to coast, many provinces and municipalities have boil orders. We know exactly what happened years ago in Ontario and how people can easily die from the mistreatment of our safe drinking water.
The bill would encourage the federal government to work with the provinces and municipalities to establish a national safe drinking water policy so that all Canadians can rest assured that the water they drink will be safe now and in the years to come.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Remembrance Day National Flag ActPeter Stoffer: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an act requiring the national flag of Canada to be flown at half-mast on Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, as we near Remembrance Day, this is a particular bill all members of Parliament of all political stripes can look at very quickly and pass almost immediately. It would require that every Canadian flag on every federal building in the country should be lowered to half-mast for the entire day on Remembrance Day, November 11, to show dignity and respect for our brave fallen in the many battles throughout the years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Bill of RightsPeter Stoffer: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing).

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is quite simple. It is to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to ensure that proper housing at a reasonable cost and free of unreasonable barriers be available for all Canadians.
In a country that is this wealthy it is a sin that we have people sleeping on the streets. Our seniors and other people are finding it very difficult to maintain their own homes in the present times. I think the government should work with the provinces and municipalities, and work with everybody to ensure that every Canadian has the right to a safe and affordable home.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Nuclear Amendment Act, 2004Dave Chatters: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to amend the Nuclear Energy Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is a re-introduction of a bill that I introduced in previous Parliaments. It is simply to split the responsibility for Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into two ministries instead of one.
In my opinion, and that of many others, there is clearly a conflict of interest that one minister is both the marketer and the public safety supervisor of the nuclear industry.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Marriage ActDave Chatters: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an act to protect the institution of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is an essential step in upholding the promise that Parliament made in 1999 to protect marriage, and that the Liberals campaigned on in the 2000 election.
It provides an opportunity to revisit the tie vote that occurred in the House during the 37th Parliament as the bill does not contain the notwithstanding clause.
The law that was recently struck down in the Ontario Court of Appeal was a common law definition. It was the deliberate inaction on the part of the Liberals that allowed us to arrive at the chaotic situation in which we now find ourselves, with traditional marriage being the law of the land in most provinces but not all provinces.
Had the Liberal government appealed the Ontario decision to the Supreme Court there is every reason to believe, based on past decisions, that the Supreme Court would have found this definition constitutional.
Finally, and more importantly, the bill also notes that the provinces have the jurisdiction to provide an appropriate legal recognition to relationships outside marriage.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax ActDave Chatters: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (public safety occupations).

Mr. Speaker, in the budget plan of 2003, the finance minister increased the maximum pension accrual rate for firefighters from 2% to 2.33%. Historically, police officers, corrections officers, air traffic controllers and commercial airline pilots have been provided the same consideration under the income tax regulations as firefighters.
This private member's bill seeks to provide equal benefit for all individuals who work in public safety occupations. It would allow police officers, corrections officers, air traffic controllers and commercial airline pilots to receive the same pension benefits as firefighters.
Individuals who work in these important public safety professions endure long hours and stressful working conditions to give us the freedom to live our lives with minimal concern. It is because of this important contribution made by these workers that I believe they should be treated equally under the law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first is on the subject matter of same-sex marriage.
The petitioners want to remind Canadians that on June 10, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that same-sex couples must have the legal right to marry. They also wanted to point out that under the current Constitution the provinces and the federal government can invoke the notwithstanding clause, section 33, to override the charter by passing legislation acknowledging the override.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause and pass a law so that only two persons of the opposite sex can be married.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to stem cells, a matter close to my heart.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential for the cures and therapies necessary for Canadians. They also want to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant progress without the immune rejection problems or the ethical problems.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 158 fine folk from Sudbury, Ontario. It is entirely in the French language. The petitioners call upon Parliament to support the traditional heterosexual, historic and sacred definition of marriage.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present to the House another petition from the residents of Mackenzie, British Columbia, calling upon Parliament to reinstate their eligibility for the northern residents tax deduction.
This week alone I have tabled petitions on this issue with a total of 2,112 signatures, an impressive number given that Mackenzie's total population, including children, is just over 6,000. It is outright discrimination that has prompted my constituents to so strongly exercise their democratic voice. If the government is listening, it should immediately restore Mackenzie's eligibility for the northern residents tax deduction.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition this afternoon from Canadian citizens residing in Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey and Vancouver, British Columbia. These petitioners note that on base housing serves a valuable purpose by allowing Canadian Forces families to live in a unique military community, that the housing accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency is in many instances substandard to acceptable living conditions and, further, that CFHA continues to dramatically increase rent for such housing.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions in housing provided for our military families.
Questions on the Order PaperRaymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Canada Shipping ActHon. Pierre Pettigrew (for the Minister of Transport): 
moved that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present the House with Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.
Under the auspices of securing Canada's public health and safety, the Prime Minister announced on December 12, 2003, that the government would be:

rationalizing responsibility for marine safety and security policy under the Minister of Transport to consolidate responsibility for security in all transportation sectors and creating the Coast Guard as a special operating agency in the Fisheries and Oceans department.

On the same day, the governor in council transferred certain parts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. Specifically, all Canadian Coast Guard policy responsibilities and certain operational responsibilities relating to pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services, pollution prevention and response, and navigable waters protection were transferred to Transport Canada. This step was taken to provide Canadians with a single point of contact for policy issues associated with marine safety and security.
The policy responsibilities transferred to Transport Canada include the development and management of legislation, regulations, standards and guidelines. Certain operational and program responsibilities associated with these policy responsibilities have been transferred to Transport Canada, including, among others, boating safety promotion and awareness programs.
On March 29, 2004, an additional order in council clarified the original transfer of authorities on December 12, 2003.
In response to this announcement, Bill C-3 is a “machinery of government bill” that is essential to carry out the cabinet's decision as it relates to marine safety and security policy.
In order to add greater certainty to this transfer of authorities, amendments to certain provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act are being proposed in Bill C-3.
The amendments in this bill only transfer to the Minister of Transport roles and responsibilities that would otherwise have been with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The content of the statutes affected by Bill C-3 remains otherwise unchanged and, as such, this bill is considered to be policy neutral. Therefore, there should be no considerations of significance for stakeholders, the environment or international relations.
As previously mentioned, the bill contains proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act relating to ministerial roles and responsibilities.
At the present time, the Canada Shipping Act confers responsibilities on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Canada Shipping Act, 2001, also confers responsibilities on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The CSA 2001 will replace the Canada Shipping Act when it enters into force, which is expected to be in late 2006.
The Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act confers responsibilities on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Oceans Act confers responsibilities on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the past, responsibility for policy relating to marine safety and the protection of the marine environment has been divided between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport. The transfer of responsibilities on December 12, 2003, makes Transport Canada responsible for marine policy and allows the Coast Guard to focus on marine operations.
It is important to note that the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, was drafted to draw as clear a distinction as possible between the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport in each part of the act, as the separation of responsibilities has consistently been problematic for both government and stakeholders.
The transfer of authorities in Bill C-3 centralizes the administration of marine safety with Transport Canada and provides the department with the opportunity to become the one-stop shop for marine safety policy and regulations. This consolidation of responsibilities is expected to improve efficiency in both marine policy and operations.
For example, uniting pleasure and commercial vessel safety requirements will promote the harmonization of such requirements. In the area of oil pollution prevention and response, these amendments will reduce the complexity of responsibilities for prevention and response for both shore facilities and vessels.
As previously mentioned, the logic of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, as drafted, contemplated implementation by two different departments. It conferred different competencies on the respective ministries and departments and enacted different implementation procedures. Transport Canada will now have implementation authority relating to both recreational and commercial vessels.
In conclusion, Bill C-3 has been drafted in response to the announcement on December 12, 2003, so as to: clarify each department's responsibilities resulting from the transfer; consolidate policy responsibility for all aspects of marine safety in one federal organization; improve the responsiveness, coherence and consistency of the marine regulatory framework for Canadians; enhance service delivery in these matters for all stakeholders; ensure that roles and responsibilities of the government remain the same, in whatever department they may be found; preserve the authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out the operational role assigned to it by the orders in council; ensure that the powers, duties and functions transferred from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport are unambiguous in order to prevent litigation or any contentious issues; and preserve the logic and coherence of the relevant statutes.
Transport Canada's legislative initiatives remain consistent with the overall federal transportation framework, which emphasizes a national vision of safety, security, efficiency and environmental responsibility. The changes introduced in Bill C-3 are changes that marine stakeholders have requested and that are welcomed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport.
In order to effect the transfer of authorities on December 12, 2003, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport, certain provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act require amendments.
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, contains the necessary amendments to the statutes. I welcome support for this bill.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member on his appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
I can tell the hon. member that we on this side welcome the introduction of this bill. It is my understanding it is consistent with some recommendations of members of all parties on the fisheries committee. I look forward to having this bill go to the transport committee.
The hon. member mentioned that this is a bill that has been requested by marine stakeholders. The committee can always decide what witnesses it will call from the industry, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary could confirm for me whether members of the Canadian shipping industry were consulted prior to the orders in council in this particular bill. Were they generally in support of the bill?
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, in the consultation that took place we reached out to all stakeholders. We continue to do so through the transport committee. We are looking forward to working not only with the marine stakeholders but with all members of this House and all people concerned in order to make sure that we have a seamless opportunity for Bill C-3 to go forward.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations. It is up to the committee to decide if it would like to have further consultations.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clear up one thing for me. This order in council came into effect on December 12, 2003. He referred to the Prime Minister. I believe on that date we had two prime ministers. That was the date on which the former prime minister from Shawinigan transferred authority over to the new Prime Minister. I wonder if he could tell me which prime minister he was referring to when this order in council was made.
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt, but I stand to be corrected, that the current Prime Minister was the one who put this forth. I could be mistaken but I am sure it was the new Prime Minister.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party with respect to Bill C-3. The bill makes a number of changes. It transfers some responsibility from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport.
When I first heard the content of the bill, my initial impression was that these matters already were within the purview of the Minister of Transport. On further investigation I had been led to believe that at one point these matters were part of the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. There were a number of decisions made over the years, and I believe that in 1995 some changes were made.
We heard the parliamentary secretary indicate that in 2001 there were a number of changes that gave responsibilities to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now the bill changes them back to the Minister of Transport where it should have been in the first place.
We are acknowledging that a mistake was made in transferring these areas of responsibility and the bill corrects the mistakes that were made in the last few years by the Liberal government.
I wish all the mistakes that the government has made could be so easily corrected and with so few consequences. There probably would be unanimous support if we could have a bill that would nullify the sponsorship program for instance. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we could have saved Canadians if that mistake could be corrected. However we are not able to do that at this point.
The bill allows the Canadian Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission. Anything that allows it to get on with that mission is certainly something I would support. Our discussion could be that a minor mistake was made in transferring this responsibility to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but the mistake has been corrected.
I bet there are many in the Canadian Coast Guard who would agree with me that a much more grievous mistake was the decision to cancel the replacement for the Sea King helicopters. That was a huge mistake. We can only surmise how much better off all of us would be today, including those who protect the country's coastlines and are involved in the security of the country if that mistake had not been perpetrated on our armed forces and the Canadian public.
In any case, we look forward to the bill moving on to committee. There are some good aspects in it. The briefing notes put out by the Department of Transport said that if we did this, the Canadian Coast Guard would be able to focus on its operational mission. We would certainly welcome that.
Certain parts of the Canadian coastline, which could be referred to as the south coast of Canada, are in my riding of Niagara Falls. We welcome any enhancement of Coast Guard activities for search and rescue and security. All of these things would be very welcome.
I am particularly pleased to see some improvement in the ability of the Coast Guard to get back to its operational mission because I believe that while we may consider this a minor mistake, there are other mistakes that have been made with respect to the Canadian Coast Guard.
I will relate to the House a discussion which took place in my former capacity as a regional councillor for the region of Niagara. As all levels of government must do, we were going through a budgetary process.
One of the interesting items in that budgetary process was the amount of money being spent by the Niagara regional police. Border security and surveillance were a considerable part of the budget of the Niagara regional police. As soon as I saw it I said that one does not have to be a constitutional expert to know that these matters of international importance and security and securing our border are the responsibility of the federal government. That is very clear.
It was a legitimate question for me to ask even though the Niagara regional police were not complaining about it. They do an excellent job in everything they do, but I had to ask the question. I said that there were federal government agencies that were supposed to do this. The bottom line was, and it did not come from the Niagara regional police because they were too diplomatic, the money was not being spent by the federal government. Despite security taxes and all the difficulties the world has seen over the last few years, the money is not being spent.
Therefore, when I see a bill like this one, I am happy that some consideration is being given to the Coast Guard to free it up to get on with its operational mission. We welcome that. However, I have to go back again and ask why the government has not done that. There is a long tradition of the Niagara regional police taking it upon themselves, picking up the slack and worrying about national security.
Earlier today there were a number of references to the important Privy Council decision that was initiated by five Canadian women that was such a landmark for Canadian women. As I was gathering my thoughts about speaking to this bill, I thought of a Canadian heroine from the Niagara area, Laura Secord.
Laura Secord was a resident of the village of Queenston. She was not a part of the military; she was a civilian. She was like many people in Niagara and so many Canadians. It came to her attention on an afternoon when the Americans had taken over her home that there would be an imminent attack on the British forces. She walked 18 miles from Queenston to Beaver Dams to warn the British that an attack was imminent. I thought, this is a part of our long tradition.
The Niagara regional police in having to worry about and spend money on international security and do the job of the federal government is just part of a long tradition that we have had in that area. It goes back to people like Laura Secord. It goes back to Butler's Rangers who were located in my riding.
Part of my riding now includes the town of Fort Erie. There is a great incident in Canadian history, just before Confederation. Several hundred misguided fools under the name of the Fenians crossed the border from Buffalo into Fort Erie. The first people to meet them were not British regular forces. There were not the Canadian militia. They were a group of farmers from the Niagara area who first met them at Ridgeway. That became the battle of Ridgeway. They stepped into the breach to make sure that our country was protected.
I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the great work of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment and all that it has done to secure our country.
When I look at what is going on with the Coast Guard, the federal government has made a great move here. It has helped the Canadian Coast Guard by taking away some responsibilities and admitting that a mistake was made in the last decade. The government needs to do something more for the Canadian Coast Guard. Give it the tools it needs. It should not be depending on the property taxpayers of the Niagara region for jobs in the area of security and search and rescue that are more properly under the purview of the federal government.
I am pleased to have made these few comments. I welcome this bill. I welcome the government's admission to its mistakes. We are very interested in consensus. It can bring in bills. We will probably be very busy this session if the government brings in bills to correct the mistakes that have been made in the last 10 years. The government can bring them forward and it will find that all parties will welcome correcting that which has been done in the past.
I certainly look forward to the bill going to the transport committee. I and other members of that committee can decide on the witnesses we would like to have. I look forward to the bill proceeding through parliament.
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, in return I welcome the hon. member back to the House and congratulate him on his new posting. I remember serving with him here as a novice under the government of Brian Mulroney. Under the leadership of Kim Campbell, he was appointed a privy councillor. I welcome him back. He has the spirit and the comradely that we all have.
I am sure every government has its own misfortunes and mistakes that one could criticize. The hon. member would certainly agree with me that no other government made more mistakes than the government of Brian Mulroney. The member was not a minister in that government but he was a member of it.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I remember the fall 1993 election very well. The Liberal Party went to no end to tell the country how strongly it was against the United States free trade agreement, how tough it would be with NAFTA, how it would abolish the GST, and these were mistakes of the previous government. After a lifetime of watching Canadian politics, in the end I could not believe that the government would change it, nor did it.
These were the big three things the Liberals talked about for years and in the 1993 election. When they had power, with a majority, they did nothing in those areas. Why? Because, ultimately, they agreed with them. Despite all the bluster and all the noise they made in the election, they supported the big three things from that era.
The hon. member has said that all governments make mistakes. The Liberal government makes a mistake every year by trying to guess the revenues of the country. It has mis-guessed the surplus every year. Mistakes are made, but the government might want to get some new people to advise it. That might be a good move. Why do we not bring in a bill suggesting that whoever has been advising the government for the last seven years as to what its revenues are should be fired. I bet we would get a consensus on that one. Is there anybody in the House who would disagree with bringing in a bill to get new people to advise the Liberals? We would all be better off and Canada as a whole would be better off.
The member is right. Every government makes mistakes, some more so than others. That is why we are here in the 38th Parliament. As he and all members will find, we will work with them to correct those mistakes. We will be glad to do it.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, may I take advantage of this, my first speech in this House, to thank all the people in my riding of Alfred-Pellan for their confidence in me. I will do my best to defend their interests here and to ensure that the jurisdiction of Quebec is respected.
Today I would like to fulfill part of that commitment by taking part in the debate on the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is, in fact, nothing more than a step backward
In 1995, the responsibilities involved in this bill were transferred from the Department of Transport to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since then, however, it has become evident that certain responsibilities overlapped and were creating confusion, so today that transfer is being partially reversed.
On December 12, 2003, when the present Prime Minister took office, policy and operational responsibilities were transferred by order in council from Fisheries and Oceans to Transport. The purpose of this bill is therefore to clarify the legislation and regularize that order.
However, the bill does not reflect the March 2004 report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans regarding the Canadian Coast Guard. This was a unanimous report, but the bill only proposes cosmetic changes that would merely split, once again, certain responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The situation is as confused as ever and the real issues facing the Coast Guard are not addressed.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking for a long term solution to settle the underfunding problems of the Coast Guard and to clear the confusion regarding the division of responsibilities for boating safety and marine pollution prevention.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the principle of Bill C-3. In its report entitled “Safe, Secure, Sovereign: Reinventing the Canadian Coast Guard”, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stressed the Canadian Coast Guard's inability to meet the challenges that it is facing now and that it will face in the foreseeable future. The report says, and I quote:

The Committee has therefore come to the conclusion that the problems at the Coast Guard cannot be resolved by incremental adjustments to the organization. This amounts to a band-aid solution that only treats the symptoms without getting at the roots of the Coast Guard’s problems.

Committee members identified several problems. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has never succeeded in truly integrating the Coast Guard into its operations. The report contains the following:

It is clear that the two organizations have different mandates, corporate cultures and philosophies, and that the merger of the two has been a disaster for the Coast Guard.

In the presentations made by the department to the committee, during our review of the department's estimates, in May 2003, the initiatives relating to the Coast Guard represented the smallest part of the department's priorities. Yet, the Coast Guard's work force, assets and responsibilities are comparable to those of other organizations at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Indeed, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard account for 30% of DFO's budget.
The Coast Guard is also suffering from serious underfunding, since anticipated and authorized spending is always greater than actual spending. This shows that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has always deprived the Coast Guard of adequate funding. Therefore, the committee said that the Coast Guard should get adequate funding and have its own budget.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-10 be referred to committee before second reading.
Robert Carrier: Thus, Mr. Speaker, the lines of accountability will be clearer and the Coast Guard's programs cannot be trumped by some other agency's priorities.
The committee also pointed out that the organization is understaffed, and I quote:

Its officers are overworked, stressed and demoralized. The Coast Guard requires the human and physical resources, ships, manpower, modern technology, and funding to do the job. The probability that the Coast Guard will get these resources within DFO, which has its own financial pressures and a different set of priorities, is, in our view, minuscule.

Finally, the Coast Guard does not play an important role in security. The Committee believes that, in addition to its traditional responsibilities, the Coast Guard should have its mandate expanded to include coastal security.The committee therefore concluded that the Canadian Coast Guard should be a stand-alone federal agency reporting directly to the minister responsible.
We think the recommendations in the unanimous report dated March 2004 should be implemented. The Bloc Quebecois wants therefore to see a renewed Coast Guard established as an independent civilian federal agency.
We also recommend that the Canadian Coast Guard be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act, which would set out the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard. These would include: search and rescue; emergency environmental response; a lead role among the several federal departments involved in marine pollution prevention.
We believe that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operational funding sufficient to carry out its existing roles as well as the expanded mandate and additional responsibilities recommended in the report of the standing committee.
We also call on the federal government to make an immediate commitment to provide the Canadian Coast Guard with an injection of capital funding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernized shore-based infrastructure and the implementation of new technology.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-3. We believe that the only solution here is the establishment of an independent agency as recommended in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech, I would like to start by thanking the people of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for voting for me to represent them.
I would like the hon. member who just spoke to know that I completely agree with his speech, especially the points on the unanimous report on the Canadian Coast Guard by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Having indirectly been involved—at the time I was the legislative assistant to the member for Matapédia—Matane, who worked on this report—I know that the Canadian Coast Guard is badly off. It has almost no money or support for its duties and functions. A simple cosmetic change, as the hon. member was saying, will not prevent disaster from occurring.
It is a matter of safety at sea. It is also a matter of responding to possible distress calls at sea. Given the region that I represent, I know of many situations where it was apparent that funding for the Coast Guard was inadequate.
That is why I support the hon. member's comments. I invite him to continue in this vein, because I think it is necessary to fight strongly for proper funding for the Coast Guard to allow it to meet the challenge of improving its chances.
I thank the hon. member for his speech and I urge him to continue championing the Coast Guard.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his encouragement.
My intention was precisely to ensure that the government does not simply transfer public service positions administratively between departments. I believe that the government ought to take a more serious approach, especially since a report was tabled by a standing committee which looked at the whole issue and made recommendations. This is a report by a committee of the same government. It does not make sense to have before us today a bill that is simply transferring public servants from one department to the other, without offering any solution to the problem.
Because of the current international security problems we are facing, the Coast Guard is likely to play a more major role in the protection of the country. This is but one thing that should be included in the mandate of the new Canadian Coast Guard agency.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, one of the boundaries of the riding of Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is the magnificent St. Lawrence River. During the second term, we took part in an important press conference about the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. At that time, ice-breaking and dredging services were mentioned. As far as I can see in this bill, there is still very little improvement regarding the Coast Guard.
I would like to ask my colleague to remind the House what recommendations the Bloc Quebecois made in March 2004, when this important issue was discussed at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I was not there when the committee report was drafted. What I have done for the moment is to rely directly on the unanimous report, which provides an even greater argument for government action, since that report had the unanimous support of all committee members.
I am sure that the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois are included in it. By our very presence we gave our unanimous support.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak briefly to Bill C-3. I want to indicate at the outset that the NDP is prepared to support the bill in principle. In our view it is the proper thing for us to be referring it to committee where it is extremely important that it be given careful consideration.
It is not a bill that contains a lot of new initiatives. It appears on the fold, by and large, to be a reorganizational effort of government, one that, on the face of it, seems to be quite supportable. We believe it is important for it to be carefully analysed at committee, and my colleague, the NDP transport critic, the hard-working member for Churchill, will no doubt be her usual detailed self in applying careful scrutiny to the bill at the committee level.
We are essentially dealing with an omnibus bill, one that effectively reverses most of the changes that were made to the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport in by the Liberals in 1994. I think we are all attempting to look forward and not waste a lot of time in the House by beating up on the government for its sins and omissions in the last 10 years.
I do not disagree for a moment with the comments made by other members that one of the true fiascos in the mandate of the government over the last decade was the mishandling of the coast guard. There clearly have been serious concerns created by the erosion of the capacity of the coast guard and by the problems created around where the coast guard's mandate kicks in and where Fisheries leaves off. As a result, there have been problems with overlap and with severe gaps. Generally, the role of the coast guard has not been possible to discharge even by the hard-working men and women who are employed to carry out the coast guard's responsibilities.
It is welcomed. We see the government facing up to some of the problems that have been created. However, it remains to be seen whether in the reorganization we will see the kind of effective enforcement around marine safety, environmental protection, pollution control and so on, which is extremely important. It will be very important to ensure that these functions are discharged in a competent and effective way.
I want to go directly to what is actually the smallest part of the bill. I want to do so for a couple of reasons. I refer specifically to the reference to Sable Island. I will quickly refer to the bill itself, a tiny element in the bill, subsection 136(2) which reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations
(a) respecting the administration and control of Sable Island;
(b) specifying classes of persons, or appointing persons, to ensure compliance with regulations made under paragraph (a) and specifying their powers and duties; and
(c) respecting maritime search and rescue.

I take the opportunity this afternoon to hone in on that aspect of the bill for a couple of reasons. One is that it is a little known fact, but I have the privilege of representing Sable Island as part of the Halifax constituency. It does not seem particularly logical on the face of it. When we look at the map, it is not exactly immediately adjacent to Halifax.
Jim Karygiannis: How many constituents?
Alexa McDonough: The parliamentary secretary asks a very good question. How many constituents are there on Sable Island? That gets to the heart of the matter that I want to address in my brief comments.
At any one time there are rarely more than four persons resident on Sable Island. The human presence on Sable Island has been critically important. There has been a very important human presence on the island, literally for over a century. It is important in terms of quality. It is important in terms of the vast array of responsibilities that are discharged and projects that are managed by the tiny staff at the Sable Island operations. However, numerically we are talking about a very small number of people.
What that belies and does not adequately convey is the tremendous value that human presence on Sable Island has and the value of the wide range of scientific research projects and environmental research activity that goes on there. A synergy exists between and among the many different projects that are involved, which pulls together government departments, academicians, scientists, in some cases corporate partners, and the actual activity that goes on in the island itself.
This is an ecological gem and there is extremely important research taking place on everything from climate change to the transmission of pollutants, to very important ecological research around some rare species, plant and animal, birds and others. Of course it is best known for its horses, but there is a variety of rare species on this island. It is an ecological gem. It is an important scientific base of activity that is forward looking. However, it has essentially been orphaned by the government.
The question that arises in stipulating that Sable Island now will fall into the mandate of the transport department, respecting administration and control of Sable Island, is a very good thing, if it means the government will finally step forward and provide not just the kind of stable, ongoing funding for the operation for Sable Island--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: We could call it “Stable Island”.
Alexa McDonough: We could call it stable island where it refers to the horses, although there are no stables for those wild horses. That is one of the reasons there are such wonderful photographs.
An appropriate management and governance structure is desperately needed to deal with this vast array of complex operations that each in their own right have tremendous value. However, if we single them out individually, they are not of great significance to any one government department.
We have had the situation where a little of what goes on Sable Island is the business of fisheries and oceans, a little is the purview of Environment Canada and some of it with respect to wildlife and parks. As a result, it is kind of everyone's business but nobody's business in terms of putting in place a government structure that works.
I do not want to dwell on this in the spirit of moving forward. I think we can say without fear of contradiction that the existing crisis with respect to a sustainable future for Sable Island is one of the most dramatic examples of the misguided decisions made at the hands of the finance minister, starting with that infamous budget in 1995. Everything possible was done to find an excuse to offload, to download, to privatize, to somehow, in the name of deficit elimination and debt reduction, shift off the public books the accounting for important functions in the Canadian government.
What happened on Sable Island, which is not the only example but one of the most dramatic examples, is that Sable Island was essentially removed from any real public accountability, with accompanying reduction in dollars and cents. The fact was that any clear departmental responsibility for the overall operation of that centre, so that it was accountable, effective, efficient and its work was known, understood and maintained on an ongoing basis, was sacrificed when the government created the Sable Island nature preservation society. I hope I have that right. I am actually a member of that society because I support its important work.
The decision to create a board in the form of that nature society, a board with no real powers and no representation on the board to link it in any effective way to the respective government departments responsible for various aspects of the functions going on at Sable Island, was absolutely misguided. I want to be fair about this, I do not mean it in a pejorative sense, but some hard-working, well-meaning volunteers have suffered the frustration of being handed over the responsibility to maintain, operate and oversee the Sable Island operation without actually having any effective tools with which to do that. I am not just talking dollars and cents.
The problem is not only that they have not been given anything like an adequate budget but they themselves say, and have said so publicly and at their annual meetings, some of which I have attended, that they have not been effectively linked in any government sense of actually managing the operation to the various government departments which have responsibilities there.
It has been an exercise in frustration. The appropriate role for that voluntary effort through a trust board would be on the public education and public awareness side of the operation. However, when it comes to the extremely important functions that go on there, it is desperately important that the government not only says that now the responsibility for the administration and control of Sable Island is effectively, if this act is implemented in this form, lodged with Transport Canada but that the governance structure created will have the appropriate representation and accountability that goes with the full range of important activity.
I do not want to dwell on the problems but the reason it is important for us to understand the problems is because what happens on that island is so important.
Recently at a public meeting called together by concerned citizens and stakeholders in the operations at Sable Island, over 250 people turned out with almost no publicity in my riding at St. Mary's University to come together and ask what was going to be done to ensure a healthy sustainable future for this environmental and scientific gem. It was rather casually indicated that the government really did not have a problem with there not being a human presence on Sable Island any more and that people could come and go as needed.
That is a financial disaster because it is incredibly inefficient to imagine trying to manage the comings and goings in a safe way. Environmentally it is a disaster because it is a very fragile ecosystem and one for which it is important to ensure that there is not just free range and free rein for people coming and going to trample across the island and jeopardize that future. In terms of economic efficiency, it makes absolutely no sense.
For value for dollar, the Sable Island operation is an incredible bargain for Canadians. My concern about the legislation is that we cannot just say that now it is Transport Canada's responsibility without ensuring that it is discharged through effective cooperation, collaboration and consultation with the many different areas of public policy in the government departments that are involved.
It was a thrill for me to actually tour the operation at Sable Island a while ago, as did my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. The visit cemented our view that this must be addressed as an urgent priority and I hope that will result from the decision to finally clearly indicate that it does rest with Transport.
I say with sadness that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been a terrible disappointment in his refusal to really address this issue. He is the political minister for Nova Scotia designated by the Liberal government but he has yet to visit the island or provide any response to the crisis that is looming there. I hope that what we will see in response to this change is a serious move at the highest government level to create an appropriate government structure.
Several excellent and comprehensive articles have been written on Sable Island that I would commend to people to read. There was a very good summation recently in the Toronto Star by reporter Kelly Toughill. There was also a very good article recently by Kevin Cox in the
Globe and Mail.
If people want to understand what an ecological gem and scientific treasury this is, it is really worth them acquainting themselves with what is going on there. I hope we can all pull together around ensuring that the job gets done for the future sustainability of that Canadian treasure, Sable Island.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, you will I am sure allow me a few moments to thank the people of my riding for the confidence shown in me on June 28. My family is in my thoughts today, my great-grandmother in particular, who kindled in me the flame that has guided me to this day.
Judging from the comments by the member for Halifax, does she not think that her criticisms might be answered by implementation of the recommendations in the March 2004 unanimous report? I am thinking in particular of the recommendation that a renewed Canadian Coast Guard be established as anindependent civilian federal agency. Then there is the recommendation that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operationalfunding sufficient to carry out existing roles as well as theexpanded mandate and additional responsibilitiesrecommended in this report. And lastly, the recommendation that the federal government make an immediate commitmentthat the Canadian Coast Guard receive an injection of capitalfunding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernizedshore-based infrastructure and the implementation of newtechnology.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not fully understand the hon. member's question. I heard it in French and then I changed to the interpretation channel. I am not sure I fully understood it.
I think the question had to do with adequate ongoing funding for the Coast Guard. As I indicated in my own remarks, this has been a serious problem.
We know we have aging vessels at a time when our marine safety and the various functions carried out by the Coast Guard are incredibly important. Whether they have to do with fisheries, pollution control or safety considerations, they need to be adequately funded. I do not think there is anything here that would address that fact nor would we necessarily expect that to be the case.
However, in response to the question, I am sure the hon. member is aware that my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been extremely vocal and vigilant on this topic. He was a very solid contributing member to the fisheries and oceans committee when it grappled with this and came back with a recommendation that the situation had to be changed, both with respect to the resources and to the Coast Guard being basically reinvented in terms of having the mandate that is required for it to carry it out.
If I have not addressed the question directly, I apologize for my inadequate French and the fact that I was trying to switch to the translation at the time.
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on this for any length of time, but Sable Island still does not get transferred over to Transport Canada. It still remains with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
However, I acknowledge and have listened very carefully to the member's comments and I will take that up with both my minister as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will work with the member to ensure that this gem, as she puts it, still remains a gem for our future generations to enjoy.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his clarification. I perhaps misunderstood, which is why it is important for us to listen to each other and raise these questions, but in the stipulation in the bill the governor in council will make regulations respecting the administration and control of Sable Island.
The reason I totally focused in on that is because I think the reason for the very crisis we have is that there are not sufficient regulations with respect to the administration and control. If I am understanding this correctly, the responsibility for the administration and control of Sable Island is more explicitly being spelled out within the context of transport.
I know I am not allowed to ask a question in response to his comments, but I hope the parliamentary secretary will take the opportunity to fully explain exactly where the responsibility will lie, because this is the problem, to finally deal with the administration of Sable Island through a governance structure that can actually get the job done.
As I said earlier, it has been effectively orphaned because everybody has a piece of the action, but nobody really takes the responsibility. There was a completely failed attempt by the Privy Council Office in the run up to the election. It was going to come up with a definitive proposal in June on how the governance of Sable Island would finally be effectively discharged.
It would be much appreciated if some light could be shed on what happened to that commitment and that investment of time and energy on the part of a lot of the partners and stakeholders to come up with an appropriate multi-partner structure. What happened? There do not seem to be any answers. It seems to have gone up in smoke and disappeared.
Perhaps some light could be shed in this debate on what the status of that initiative is and where it goes from here. Is it in fact an accurate understanding that Transport Canada will now address this subject once and for all?
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I listened with pleasure to the comments by the hon. member for Halifax, as she described the beauty of Sable Island and the importance of preserving its environment. I share her concerns.
Still, the departmental presentation of the bill correctly says that there will be no fundamental change made to the legislation, that the rules remain the same, and that the powers and duties of the minister remain the same as well.
Thus, I do not see how my hon. colleague can support this bill since it sorts out nothing in the end. It answers none of our concerns, from the protection of Sable Island to many other issues.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member because I think they underscore the concern.
The reason I have taken the opportunity today in this debate to spell out what I think are very serious problems, in fact a crisis with regard to the future of Sable Island, is that questions remain unanswered. By just putting in the bill responsibilities with respect to the future administration of Sable Island does not get us to where we need to go, which is to have an appropriate government structure.
I assume that part of the purpose of having this general debate before it then goes to committee is to raise the concerns that need to be addressed and to seek clarification on the extent to which those really serious problems will be addressed, how they will be addressed and, if this is not adequate legislation, to ensure that happens and then to push for the kinds of amendments or changes that are needed within the legislation or within some other purview to ensure that we do not literally fritter away and eventually destroy this wonderful ecological treasure and environmental setting.
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
I am pleased to rise today to address the House about the importance of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, that has been tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Transport.
The bill reflects the government's initiative to reform the ways of promoting safety on the waterways and protection of the marine environment. In the past, responsibility for policy relating to marine safety and the protection of the marine environment has been divided between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport.
The government has now consolidated the rule making responsibility under a single department to furnish stakeholders with a single point of contact for policy issues related to marine safety. This will make the marine regulatory framework more responsive, coherent and consistent. It will also free the Canadian Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission, including search and rescue.
This machinery of government bill is nonetheless an important piece of legislation because of its benefits for the shipping industry and marine activities as well as marine transport.
I would like to provide some statistics. Canada is home to the largest inland waterway open to ocean shipping. Every year over 40 million passengers and 17 million vehicles travel by ship in Canada representing over 15% of worldwide ferry traffic. Marine is the dominant mode of overseas trade with annual shipments in excess of $100 billion. Over 75,000 small commercial vessels ply our waters. The Canadian marine transportation sector directly employs more than 25,000 people. The number of Canadians who take advantage of our waterways for recreational purposes is estimated at around 8 million and they do so in 2.5 million pleasure vessels.
This large scale economic and recreational activity is generally conducted in a way that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. Shipping uses less fuel per tonne of cargo than does any other mode of transportation. Hence the great importance in the marine sector of a transparent and predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public policy objectives efficiently while eliminating unintended impacts, to use the language of the Speech from the Throne. A regulatory system must be securely founded on clear laws.
To quote again from the Speech from the Throne, “Smart government also includes providing an up-to-date legislative framework for business”. Although technical in form the bill would improve the way government does business. Rule making would be better coordinated and more accessible to Canadians meaning better protection for seafarers, the public and the marine environment, as well as clear rules and processes to promote a competitive marine transportation sector.
I would like to reaffirm my support for Bill C-3 as tabled by my colleague today.
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall be splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. Please allow me, as well, to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to support Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, that has been introduced by my colleague the Minister of Transport.
The bill clearly outlines the changing responsibilities mainly affecting the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as brought about by the Prime Minister's decision last December and reflected in the related orders in council.
It is a positive move, not only for the government but also for those who are governed in the marine world by a variety of legislation which can be confusing and difficult to find who is responsible and for what.
This change is encouraging as it would provide Transport Canada the responsibility for policy relating to pleasure craft, marine navigation services, pollution response and navigable waters protection. It would provide a single focal point for the majority of ship, vessel or pleasure craft safety matters as well as protection of the marine environment from vessel spills.
Many stakeholders will see this as a move in the right direction. I am aware how difficult it has been to identify, within the Canada Shipping Act, areas of responsibility covered by Transport Canada and those of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I too realize that the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 was drafted to clarify the division of responsibilities. It is an improvement but in fact, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 does not offer one-stop service in matters of security.
For example, in an accident involving a pleasure craft and a commercial vessel, there will certainly be representatives of Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the scene. Obviously, this could lead to confusion for those involved, and be seen as a duplication of services. We must correct this situation at all costs.
The bill will correct and clarify who will be responsible under those acts. It is reassuring to know that the same department will be responsible for the safety regimes for all vessels. This can only lead to further harmonization in the development and application of regulations and standards.
I also understand that the bill does not contain any changes in policy, and the changes reflecting the new and more appropriate responsibilities of the Minister of Transport will not create any new resource burden for the government. It just makes sense.
In conclusion, I would like to restate my support for this bill. It is appropriate and it clarifies responsibilities. It provides Canadians with one-stop service in terms of marine safety and does so without unwanted financial impact.
In plain words, it makes sense. The throne speech said we would streamline legislation and regulations to enable government to work better and smarter. Bill C-3 does just that.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I want the new Liberal member for Ottawa—Orleans—I wonder if there has been an amalgamation in this sector, in any event, Ottawa and Orleans were amalgamated in the case of the name of my colleague's riding—to tell me whether he is taking into account the recommendations in the unanimous report tabled in March 2004.
Is he aware of this situation and does he approve of the recommendations?
Marc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, yes, the government is fully aware of this report. It is not the intention of current legislation to address this issue, but I think that the Prime Minister has announced that in the not so distant future this situation will be taken into consideration.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member if he could specifically address the issue regarding Sable Island and what it is, in his applauding the legislation, that would give a basis for optimism.
On the one hand, I understood the member to be saying that it is really just an organizational matter, that it is really a consolidation of the existing status quo. On the other hand, there is this desperate need for us not to maintain the status quo at Sable Island, but to recognize that there has not been an appropriate government structure.
The bill that is before us now gives the transport minister the opportunity to make appropriate administrative arrangements and regulations in that regard. Can the member shed any light on what it is we can hope for, or is it false hope on our part to think that this situation will be alleviated as a result of some specific responsibility lodged with Transport Canada?
Marc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really a transfer of power between two ministries. We said a few minutes ago that we will take under advisement what the hon. member had to say on the matter. The minister responsible for that area will ensure a follow-up on that very important matter.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to take a tour of the beautiful riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. You will be warmly welcomed by the good people there, who will certainly be able to talk to you about the Coast Guard or anything related to maritime life.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
I am pleased to speak to the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is a long title, but at closer glance, it appears that the change, as the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan was saying earlier, is purely cosmetic.
Everyone at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed that the basic problem is the chronic underfunding of the Canadian Coast Guard. It has been the topic of many speeches over the past few years. It has also affected different ridings in different ways. In the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine in particular, Coast Guard services were reduced as a result of decreased funding over the years.
In my remarks, I would like to go over a number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It is worthwhile to recall certain parts of this committee report which will help to better understand the situation. Recommendation 9 in particular provides:

That a renewed Canadian Coast Guard be established as anindependent civilian federal agency.

The bill before us does not do that at all. That is why it is important to look at the overall issue in order to improve the situation and have better, efficient service.
In addition, the Coast Guard should be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act that would set out a number of its responsibilities, which is not the case right now. These include search and rescue, and emergency environmental response. Goodness knows, situations can happen that call for an emergency response.
I will also address the Coast Guard's lead role among the several federal departments involved inmarine pollution prevention. To increase the effectiveness of its mandate, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard could include a formal mandate in national security with respect to Canada’s coasts, including the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. There is more.
Full operational funding was recommended in response to many comments and historical situations experienced in the past that have made us realize that we are indeed facing a situation where the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard are not adequate. We could look at various aspects. We could look at the fleet, for example, that is to say what the Coast Guard has to operate and to carry out its mandate.
With respect to the fleet, in recent years, the Coast Guard has found itself in a situation where it did not have sufficient funding to effectively carry out its mandate. That is one aspect; sadly, there are others.
I say sadly because, when we look at the underfunding of the Coast Guard, we can see that, where maritime service is concerned, we can find ourselves facing unusual situations such as those experienced in recent years.
Such a situation occurred in an area of my riding, the Magdalen Islands, where we had to put up a fight. Residents of the Magdalen Islands took to the streets or, rather, the Cap-aux-Meules wharf, to send a strong message to the effect that the government should absolutely not make new cuts in Coast Guard services, under the pretext that it would save a few thousand dollars, because it would then completely abdicate one of its primary responsibilities, namely marine security.
As members know, the Magdalen Islands are located 250 kilometres off the Gaspé Peninsula. Being out at sea, they are quite isolated. The services provided by the Coast Guard go far beyond the notion of services: they are a matter of security. The Magdalen Islands have a seafaring tradition, which means that people use boats a lot to give a little boost to the local economy. If the Coast Guard decides that it wants to save a few thousand dollars, the result could be that, instead of relying on the Coast Guard to provide effective and quick service in case of an emergency, a distressed ship may have to wait for help coming from much further away.
As we know, travelling at sea is not like travelling in the air. Speed is calculated in knots, not in hundreds or thousands of kilometres per hour. The speed of ships is calculated in knots. In this context, the notion of Coast Guard services takes on its full meaning. Fiddling with the figures—this is the expression that comes to mind—to save some money may jeopardize the safety of seamen who are trying to make an honest living. These people do not want to be faced with catastrophic situations that could put their lives at risk.
Unfortunately, this is what has been happening in recent years. We witnessed more than mere threats; the Coast Guard's budget was actually cut, with the result that it had less money to provide its services.
The Coast Guard has a very important mandate. This is why it is absolutely critical that we not make mere cosmetic changes, to paraphrase the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. Rather, we should take this opportunity to massively invest new money. This would not improve the situation, but at least we would be able to deal with it.
In this case, as I also had the opportunity to do during the election campaign, we could talk about the defence issue. We know very well that, when we talk about the defence issue, we talk a lot about being a little on the defensive, which is somehow apt. However, we are not talking about development.
Concerning the Coast Guard, we must not only be on the defensive and demonstrate, as the people from the Magdalen Islands have done on the wharf in recent years. These people want to go out on the wharf of Cap-aux-Meules, but not necessarily to demonstrate.
In this sense, we found ourselves in a tough spot, with many defence issues such as this one, instead of talking about development. Development means improvement. It also means being able to face changes. There are many changes. It may be quite difficult sometimes to face situations where we should ensure that sailors in trouble receive help.
This also brings me to the famous unanimous report. I come back to the concept of unanimous, because it is important. Indeed, we realize that Liberal colleagues, at the time, and I hope they will not deny what happened at the time—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: They have a short memory.
Raynald Blais: We often say also “selective memory”. However, speaking of memory, we need to get back to certain points about the unanimity of this report and the report itself.
That report put its finger right on the sore spot. I cannot help pointing out again the underfunding of the Coast Guard. When it comes down to it, this is nothing more than a bill that will negate many hours of debate. I will just point out that this process took months, of course, and culminated in a unanimous report from the fisheries and oceans committee.
My former boss, in my parliamentary assistant days, was in fact a member of that committee, along with members of other parties. As the member for Halifax has just said, one member spoke at length about ensuring that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which was responsible for the Coast Guard, would have proper funding.
When it comes to merely transferring responsibilities from fisheries to transport, since that is what we have before us today, no basic change is being made to the law. The rules remain unchanged, as do the powers and functions of the minister. Only the identity of the minister responsible changes. We are talking here of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport. The bill, of course, gives no indication of the cost of such a transfer . The shipping industry is not opposed to the changes proposed, since they will have little impact in actual fact.
In this context, we need a little background. In 1995, that is 9 years ago already, the responsibilities involved were transferred to Fisheries and Oceans. So this is a kind of turning back the clock without making the real changes required.
I come back, obviously, to the principle of underfunding. On December 12, 2003, when the current Prime Minister—who could be called the father of fiscal imbalance--took office, policy and operational responsibilities were transferred by order in council from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. Thus, the purpose of the current bill is to clarify existing legislation in order to formalize the order.
As far as this bill is concerned, I would say that if there is no additional funding for marine safety and environmental protection, we are going to have a serious problem. I call on all my colleagues to demonstrate anew—not on the Cap-aux-Meules wharf—the unanimous desire they once had to change the very essence of funding for the Canadian Coast Guard.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-12 be referred to committee before second reading.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say about Bill C-3. I had a first look at the bill just a few minutes ago. I did not intend to speak to it, but some of its provisions caught my attention and have me worried, to say the least.
This bill is far from innocuous. Although some would argue that it is only a housekeeping bill, it does transfer some of the powers from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport, including the Coast Guard services. Among other things, the Coast Guard used to and hopefully will continue to deal with security issues. This is about to change. Security will be handled by the Minister of Transport, who has some very specific clients, including major ship owners. Let us not forget that the speed limit for ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway is set by the Coast Guard. It is a voluntary limit. From now on, Transport Canada, whose main clients are ship owners, will be responsible for enforcing the speed limit. That could put at risk the biodiversity of the St. Lawrence and of all the other bodies of water coming under the Marine Act.
We need to keep one thing in mind: the purpose of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to protect our resources. This bill will transfer one of the powers of the department in charge of protecting our resources, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to a more industry oriented department. So, there is reason to be worried.
I wonder if the member agrees that this could have an impact on the protection of biodiversity and marine pollution.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his comments and question. That leads me to insist on one point. Without wanting to appear redundant, I find that maritime safety and pollution are words whose maritime meaning can make a difference in terms of resources, when a person in danger can be saved. The same is true in the case of the environment in terms of the resources involved.
I remind the House that the landed value of marine resources in Quebec may amount to $157 million. That is the 2003 figure.
In economics, it is customary to apply a multiplication factor of three, for the intermediary levels. Thus, the industry may be worth a half million dollars in Quebec alone. That is a different debate, but I can say that if Quebec had really occupied its proper place and could take back its share of historic quotas, it would be even greater.
So it is a question of economics, employment, development, protection of the resource and safety, too. That is why it is important for the Coast Guard's services to operate in developmental mode instead of always being on the defensive.
The bill before us focuses us on what has already happened and in doing so, we are not in developmental mode. If I may slip in a pun, we have definitely missed the boat.
It would be a way to improve services. With respect to the Department of Transport, I remind the hon. members that people in the shipping industry have fought long and hard to ensure that the costs of ice removal, dredging and the like do not rest solely on the shoulders of the industry. Negotiations on this have been going on a long time but have not come to any conclusions.
As for the Coast Guard, it is very important to stand up and say that current funding is inadequate. This bill will not provide safe passage through this situation, which may potentially be catastrophic for the resource and may also endanger human lives.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for highlighting the different mandates that may be given to the Coast Guard and that are currently deficient in terms of their implementation.
My colleague from Ottawa—Orléans mentioned earlier that the government was seriously examining the unanimous report of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I urge the government to examine this report as soon as possible and to replace the current project as quickly as possible. Indeed, this project seems pointless, because virtually no comment would support it. I recommend instead that the government introduce a bill that would improve the Coast Guard mandates by following the unanimous and very serious recommendations regarding our environment and the protection of all Canadian coasts.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank again the new member for Alfred-Pellan for his comments. There will need to be many of us working on this issue, because it is unfortunately going to be a huge task.
I do mean unfortunately. It should be a matter of common sense when we talk about maritime security or marine pollution. Sufficient funding should be provided, but it is not.
It is not sufficient at present and it is not likely to be sufficient after the bill before us today is passed. In that sense, it is absolutely essential that all my hon. colleagues have the opportunity to review the unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and even to read it again. This would give them a clearer picture of the situation and help meet the challenge of having a Coast Guard that is able to effectively carry out its responsibilities.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker,—
Odina Desrochers: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague was allotted 20 minutes to speak, but indicated at the beginning of his remarks that he would be sharing 10 minutes of his speaking time with me. I would like to know if that is still his intention. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine clearly indicated he was sharing his time with me. I just want to know if that is still his intention, Mr. Speaker, before you recognize the hon. member across the way.
Wayne Easter: He didn't give you much time.
The Deputy Speaker: I must admit that I did not hear that the time was to be split. In fact, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine spoke for almost 20 minutes himself, so I assumed that was the full 20 minutes and we used it all up in questions and comments following. I believe we will have to resume debate and we will catch the hon. member in the next round.
Ken Boshcoff: Again, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to you.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to the House about the importance of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, which has been introduced by the Minister of Transport.
As members know, the transportation industry as a whole is a vital component of our economy. When looking at the marine sector of this industry, we must keep in mind that it operates both domestically and internationally.
In recent years, a substantial amount of work has been done in an effort to modernize our national transportation system and prepare this sector to meet the needs of the coming century and the demands of the global marketplace.
To achieve these objectives, the government has taken a number of initiatives in all operational modes, and its efforts have mainly focused on simplifying acts and regulations. These initiatives are still within the overall federal framework relating to transportation, which promotes a national vision on security, safety, efficiency and environmental responsibility.
On December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister announced that the responsibility for marine safety and security would be consolidated under the Minister of Transport.
To effect this centralization, some parts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been transferred to the Department of Transport. Following these changes, Transport Canada now has all policy responsibilities and some operational responsibilities for pleasure craft security, marine navigation service, pollution prevention, environmental intervention and waterway protection. These are very important changes for the marine transportation industry and its stakeholders.
Canadians will now have a single point of contact for policy issues associated with marine safety and security. This consolidation of responsibilities is expected to improve efficiency in both marine policy and operations. As the content of this bill is considered to be policy neutral, these changes can only be looked upon as positive by the marine industry.
The intent of Bill C-3 is very clear to us today. Most important, it clarifies each department's responsibility as a result of the transfer of December 12, 2003. It consolidates policy responsibility for all aspects of marine safety in one federal department. It improves the responsiveness, coherence and consistency of the marine regulatory framework in Canada. It enhances service delivery on marine matters for all stakeholders.
It ensures that the roles and responsibilities of the government remain the same in whatever department they are found. It preserves the authorities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out the operational role assigned to it by the orders in council. It ensures that the powers, duties and functions transferred from the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans to the Ministry of Transport are unambiguous, in order to prevent litigation or any contentious issues. It preserves the logic and coherence of the affected statutes.
The changes introduced in the bill are changes that marine stakeholders have been suggesting for quite some time. In addition, these changes are welcomed by both the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The enactment of this bill is a vital step to effecting the Prime Minister's announcement on December 12, 2003. At this time, I would like to reaffirm my support of Bill C-3 as tabled by my colleague today.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, understandably, my remarks will be similar to those of my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, since our ridings face each other, on opposite sides of the magnificent St. Lawrence River.
Many municipalities in my constituency are found along the river. There is Grondines, Neuville, Donnacona and a small part of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, to mention just a few. Naturally, there are a number of wharfs in my riding. Some of them are more for recreational boating while others are used more by industry.
It is easy to understand why I would worry about this change from one department to another. One would think a department like DFO would be more conservation-minded while the Department of Transport would place more emphasis on the development of resources. I can certainly understand why the Prime Minister is interested in shipping.
The Liberal member opposite mentioned that this bill has a positive impact because its impact is neutral. The only thing I can see right now is the old Liberal habit of making cosmetic changes instead of dealing with underlying issues.
Maybe I am a bit naive, as a new member of Parliament, but I have a hard time understanding how the government can fail to take into account the unanimous report of a committee on which it had a majority. Why does it not implement the recommendations of this committee? Its own members voted unanimously for these recommendations.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, I will say that over my previous number of years as a mayor and a member of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence mayors' conference, one of the issues that we were mostly concerned with was of course the safety and integrity of the lakes and the efficiency of the transportation situation, so I am very cognizant of the member's question.
I know that it has been addressed not only municipally, provincially and federally, but by myself as the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River. The port of Thunder Bay of course is at the western end of this great system that we have. This legislation, I believe, very strongly reflects many years of input from people who have been very concerned about the efficiency and protection of the Great Lakes. I truly believe they are on the right track. This is very sound legislation.
The member's question is well founded and I am pleased to say that those issues are being addressed.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, thank you for at last giving me the chance to speak. I know you are still getting used to the position and I know you are making quite an effort to understand our language. I congratulate you on that. You can probably understand that some of us on this side of the House also sometimes have a bit of trouble pronouncing the names of certain western ridings, so we are even on that score.
Like my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Alfred-Pellan, I am concerned about this most vital question of Bill C-3. It is even more vital to Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière than to most ridings. I do not want to launch into a travelogue here, but there are five lovely villages along the shores of the St. Lawrence: Saint-Nicolas, Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, Sainte-Croix, Saint-Louis-de-Lotbinière and Leclercville.
Those five parishes represent the roots of French colonization.They have been in place for two or three hundred years. Generations of their inhabitants have taken pride in living on the shores of the majestic St. Lawrence. I shudder at the thought of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibilities being handed over to Transport Canada. It is scary to think about what will happen when the Department of Transport steps in to slow down the huge ships that ply the St. Lawrence, particularly the Martin family ships.
We have had such a hard time figuring out all the red tape that ensued from the federal government's cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We eventually managed to cut through it all to get information, to find out who in the department has which responsibility and who will give us straight answers. Now, in order to improve the system, those responsibilities are going to be transferred to Transport.
Who at Transport will provide answers on important issues, like Fisheries and Oceans did? We know what reorganizing the work means. Will Transport employees be equipped to provide the same service that the Fisheries and Oceans people did? These are questions that need to be asked.
I have some experience and I have seen many departmental reorganizations on the other side of the House; so, we shall see.
Still, usually when the ministers are shuffled, and often when a new prime minister comes in, the names are all changed, and then we MPs must explain to the public how it works.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada looks after fauna, protects against pollution, and also is responsible for ice breaking on the St. Lawrence River. The department's experts have done their best, even though they have been faced with savage cuts since 1993 by the former finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada.
How are we to understand the logic behind this transfer? How are we to understand this government, which prides itself on being pro-environment and yet does such things as this?
When these responsibilities are transferred to the Department of Transport—and I hope they never are—will that department give as much attention as Fisheries and Oceans did to the issues, jurisdictions, and decisions that DFO officials had to make respecting an area as important as fisheries and oceans?
I will not be giving a course in semantics this afternoon, but in order for the people to understand, usually the department bears the name of the resource to which it is attached. For everyone, it was simple: Fisheries and Oceans meant that they looked after fisheries and oceans. Now we will have to convince the public that the Department of Transport is looking after fisheries and oceans, although the Department of Transport is identified with aviation, highways, and everything to do with roads. Now, with Bill C-3, we will attempt to convince the public that the Department of Transport can do this work. It is impossible.
Moreover, in proposing this game of musical chairs, if the Liberal government had said that such and such a responsibility was being assumed, that it was being moved to a particular sector, if improvements had been proposed, such as enhancing the services provided by Fisheries and Oceans, if it had added more money and resources to enhance the security of people who deal with the DFO, perhaps I might have accepted Bill C-3.
But only responsibilities are being transferred. There are no improvements, no additional funds, no additional resources.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Only risks.
Odina Desrochers: There are only incredible risks to the fauna, the environment and the St. Lawrence River.
Experts are addressing increasingly the very important question of the beauty of the St. Lawrence River. We know that the St. Lawrence is the pride of Quebec and is associated with Quebec. It is an incredible gem, a place where business is conducted. It is a shipping channel. Nonetheless, with everything we hear about the intentions of the Liberal government, and in particular to dredge the St. Lawrence Seaway, and everything being presented in Bill C-3 today, I understand why the residents of the municipalities I mentioned earlier are worried. I am sure that the residents of both sides of the St. Lawrence, from the Gaspé to Montreal, including the regions of Montérégie, Centre-du-Québec, Quebec City and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, have the same concerns as the people I represent. Like all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I oppose the principle of Bill C-3.
Let me come back to the long title. Note the great expectations they have with a title like: act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is a long title. One would expect major changes with such a title, but they are empty words.
The purpose of this bill is to amend four acts. First, it mentions the Canada Shipping Act. Do we have a Canada Shipping Act? We have the semblance of an act. Look at what happened with the shipyards. There was a shipyard in Sorel and one in Lévis, but we know what happened. Now, they would have me believe that with Bill C-3 we are going to change the Canada Shipping Act? What act? If it exists, is it solid? I do not think so.
There is also the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. As with the former act, are they trying to convince us that they are going to change an act from 2001 that did not satisfy anyone in this House?
Of course, let us not forget shipowners and the Martin family. These people are very influential when the time comes to make decisions. Here is a good one: I do not know if this is always the case but, apparently, the Martin children must go through the ethics counsellor to speak to their father, who is the Prime Minister. This is how the government would have us believe that the Prime Minister has no say whatsoever in the administrative decisions made by his children. Come on, give me a break on this Friday afternoon. Who is going to believe this? Who finds Howard Wilson credible? What credibility was there in Jean Chrétien meeting with Mr. Wilson to indicate to him, whenever there was a problem, what to say, or else be fired? This is how they tried to sell us the idea that the government was acting objectively and ethically.
The more things change in this Parliament—and we have only been here since October 4—the more they stay the same. The Prime Minister has changed, as have a number of ministers, but nothing has really changed. We do not see any improvement, and this is particularly true with Bill C-3.
The Liberals have a thing about respecting, or rather not respecting, unanimous reports. Think about the one on employment insurance, which was also not respected. Here we are dealing with the recommendations of another unanimous report tabled in March 2004. Either this government has trouble remembering things, or it has trouble reading the documents available to it.
If a different party were in power, someone other than the Liberals, we could understand some little hitches as files were transferred. But no, it is the same gang, still the Liberals. When it comes time for action, they have big gaps in their memories. I would say they have a selective memory, which tends to favour those who support the Liberal Party and to ignore the interests of Quebec. Selective memory is what it is.
Could you indicate how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker? You will understand that I want to respect your authority.
The Deputy Speaker: There is about one minute before the adjournment of the House.
Odina Desrochers: I am pleased to conclude here, because I get the feeling that many in this House are anxious to see this week come to an end, myself included. Not that I want to see the end of my speech, because there is plenty more I could say on this bill.
I will just state that we are opposed to Bill C-3 and that we, the 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois, will keep watch steadfastly, day in and day out, over the interests of Quebec.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five minutes when the House resumes its sitting on Monday.
It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 18 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)